upvote
> a fence or gate erected across a road.

Except in many cases it is your responsibility to ask. If something has indefined legal status, and no documentation, it is a major red flag. Very often corruption, drug or people trafficking or other shady stuff.

If you want gate in middle of the public road, show the paperwork! Or I will call authorities!

reply
The responsibility to ask is literally the point of Chesterton's fence in my mind; when something looks out of place, and you think it doesn't make sense, you need to ask and learn about it. Sometimes the fence genuinely is unnecessary, and you can then proceed to dismantle it, but other times it might be useful for surprising reasons; it might be a mitigation for an issue that would require a much more time-consuming fix; and it might sometimes genuinely be unnecessary. The point of finding out this information is that the correct action is different for each of them; taking down the fence is fine if it's genuinely useless, and leaving it alone is necessary if it's genuinely useful for reasons you didn't anticipate. In the middle ground where there's a better solution that would take more time, the correct action depends on the answer to a follow-up: is replacing the fence the most important use of my time right now? I've experienced all three of these situations before (and both possible answers to the follow-up in the third case), so I've found this framework helpful for how to deal with the fences when I come across them.
reply
How you ask the question matters just as much as whether you should ask it. Impressionable ears are everywhere and asking 'is there icecream in the house?' means that everyone is about to get a bowl or be upset.
reply
Yes, Chesterton clearly hadn’t started working at a job where he was responsible for the security or accuracy of a process. “Then Marge calculates the late penalties by hand and enters them into the system? It’s fine, she … has a method?Really?”
reply
Chesterton was talking about politics (public policy). And 'responsible for security or accuracy' well, have you heard of politics? If you haven't, don't look it up, it will just depress you.
reply
The point Chesterton is making isn’t that you leave everything alone. It’s just that you find out why something is there before you take it out. Find out my Marge calculates the penalties by hand. You may find that the program gets it wrong, in which case taking her out of the process would be a disaster unless you fix the underlying problem first. Or you may find that it’s completely pointless and you can go straight to using the automation. It’s not that you ignore it and leave it forever, just that you find out what’s going on before you start taking the axe to things.
reply
I’ve always liked Chesterton’s Fire.

Maybe there’s a reason you’re on fire. Until you can say for sure, I will not put it out.

I will just be here roasting these marshmallows on your burning flesh. :)

reply
What a ridiculous misrepresentation of the principle. In fact isn't that a good illustration of the principle? The fence is just sitting there, maybe it's annoying or slows you down but it isn't actually an acute problem or an emergency. All the more reason to not just rip it out without taking the time to understand why it's there.
reply
My version was Chesterton's Facehugger.

Something which, as soon as you discover it, you should immediately respond by trying to remove it, without asking questions about where it came from or what its purpose might be.

reply
Do you have a real practical example of this? I have never encountered a real one that didn't turn out to be a fence in hindsight.
reply