Comments on: The Simplification Mandate

By: Nan Patience

Nan Patience — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:54:48 +0000

I recently wrote a post that it seems we’re living within a new truck system, “as in another day older and deeper in debt.”

By: vernon dolphin

vernon dolphin — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:27:29 +0000

complexity compounded geometrically has corrolaries:
unintended consequences (the clatterfall of contradictory systems),

desperate decisions by default (in the face of one ignorance and/or onerous complexity),

manipulation through obfuscation( by fine print–hard copy or on online),

gaming the system (by intervention of the rules…possible by automated slight of hand)

domination of visibility (by ownership of media).

By: James W. Marcum

James W. Marcum — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:57:55 +0000

Wonderful perspective; loved it.
Unfortunately, it’s not enough. We’re moving beyond complexity (which we use systems and hierarchy to cope with–according to H. Simon) to super-complexity, where the rules, the models, the very paradigms don’t work satisfactorily. UK’s Ron Barnett has written some interesting things about the role of the university in this new universe.

By: pedicabking

pedicabking — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:14:55 +0000

It is an excellent point that the government has all these mandates to be inclusive and have buildings and items conform to the needs of the handicapped. Yet when it comes to their own BS, they have no such rules tailoring to the abilities of “the handicapped”.

Last census, I got the “long form” at my business and was threatened with massive fines if I didn’t fill it out. I have ADD — I’m “handicapped.” Shouldn’t the government have a special “short form” of the “long form” just for us people who can’t sit still long enough to do hours of extra work for the government?

By: Don

Don — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:25:46 +0000

Incisive and and brilliant. Thoreau was absolutely correct: Sinplify, sinplify! Mandated simplicity would not be a disaster in anywhere near the dimension of the disaster we have visited upon ourselves by plotting a lazy-man’s course of law simply because we were unwilling to give their writing the thought and fore-sight they required. The best laws have always been simple: eg. The referenced Ten Commandmants, the Bill of Rights–as have other timless documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, etc. In a nation where, at least in principle, the laws belong to the people, it should be a given that 95% (at a minimum) of the people they affect should readily understand them. Passing a tax code you can’t carry in both arms not only invites non-compliance, it mandates it. Those struggling under the socialism of Eastern Europe used to observe that everything was illegal, but they never enforced the laws. The laws were just there so that at any given time, if they wanted you, that had you. Is this what we’ve willingly come to?

Brilliant editorial. Send it to the Wall Street Journmal: It belongs on their editorial page….. or the Front Page!

By: admin

admin — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:10:44 +0000

Phil, I think it would be okay to legislate it in a way where we curb complexity. but you’re right, mandating simplicity would be a disaster.

By: Spherical Phil

Spherical Phil — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:36:34 +0000

Great piece on our crazy approach to the world and life. I am little concerned though that some ‘left-brainers’ will take heed to your message and attempt to legislate simplicity. Could be a major disaster.