Hacker News Reader

> Chesterton primarily meant that in terms of traditional morality or other things that have largely already been totally rejected, he denied the existence of divorce because it presumes the state can dissolve oaths which is just to reject the existence of oaths.

> Artificial institutions that have existed for a matter of decades don't make sense to apply the fence idea to, that's more about things that have been timeless in humanity that we recently started to reject.

It matters a little bit what he originally meant, but not a whole lot. What we mean with the fence is simply that you should do a bit of due diligence before making changes. That applies to all sorts of systems, government or IT, or anything else.

If something has only existed for decades it is essentially brand new and in a trial period, the trial failed. The context Chesterton meant was for things that have centuries or millennia of history behind them being upended. I'm sorry I know we like to feel very important in tech but if something hasn't been a thing for 100 years it does not matter historically.

There is no mystery why these institutions that are 30 years old exist, we have the documents and probably the people that formed them still around. We know what they got paid for and what they did. It's a very different thing if we have some cultural historical tradition (say gender roles, alcohol, only males voting, the stuff Chesterton actually talked that were actually issues at the time) that has persisted for centuries or thousands of years being upended because "i don't like it" without understanding it's actual structure.

Here's another good quote (the book is free to read, quotes are no way for actual human beings to think https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/470/pg470-images.html#c... ) >Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

And before people think "Oh yeah this applies to USAID" this is specifically in the context of people upending historically common beliefs Chesterton viewed himself as a great defender of. If you don't think morality and truthe are real and goodness is a part of nature you are still living in violation of that and that's probably why you have a hard time understanding why people are against things like USAID. Chesterton would be disgusted to be used in such a manner.

> There is no mystery why these institutions that are 30 years old exist, we have the documents and probably the people that formed them still around. We know what they got paid for and what they did.

You're suggesting the DOGE folks actually read these documents and talked to the people?

I'm having a difficulty understanding your last point:

> If you don't think morality and truthe[sic] are real and goodness is a part of nature you are still living in violation of that and that's probably why you have a hard time understanding why people are against things like USAID.

I believe morality and truth are real, and that both good and evil are part of human nature, but I still don't understand why people have it in for USAID. Well, I understand why the radical Left has traditionally disliked it, because they see it as advancing US "imperialism", but I reject that rationale. I don't get why American conservatives, who claim to believe in morality and truth (which include principles like "help your neighbor"), and also advancing American interests in the world want to destroy an agency that combines both.

Note: this is separate from the question of whether any particular aid project is worthwhile. I'm sure many aren't, and those should be shut down through the regular political process. This isn't what's happening right now.

..."can't put the clock back" doesn't literally mean that you can't change the time on a clock. It's referring to not being able to go back and change things that already happened.

This is true. There are things that, once done, cannot be undone. You can try to fix their consequences. You can change what you do going forward, so that the thing would not be done that way again. But you can't, say, un-kill an executed innocent.

reread the quote

Your argument about what Chesterton means remains built on deliberately misunderstanding what other sayings mean, so I'm skeptical.

The phrase comes from analog clocks where, depending on the internal design, winding them backwards could break them.

No. There are many things that are path dependent and much harder to fix if you do it wrong the first time. People resign and move on, and it can take decades to build up the skills again. For example: if Trump breaks Ukraine, how do you fix that later? Deals are signed. The war stops. China is now emboldened to have a shot at Taiwan.

People are already dying, and quite a few more will. You can't turn the clock back on that.