[AnthonyMouse]

> Duct tape fixes work when more aspirational fixes are unattainable.

Duct tape fixes convince people to get back into the car even though it's still unsafe and then the duct tape gives way at 70 MPH and you crash into a tree.

Duct tape is for ducts. Sometimes it's also useful for patching leaky hoses. It's not for attaching the steering to the wheels.

If you're going to propose an institutional solution by legislative fiat, do it right or don't do it at all.

[toomuchtodo]

Lets go with speed tape then.

> Speed tape is an aluminium pressure-sensitive tape used to perform minor repairs on aircraft and racing cars. It is used as a temporary repair material until a more permanent repair can be carried out. It has an appearance similar to duct tape, for which it is sometimes mistaken, but its adhesive is capable of sticking on an airplane fuselage or wing at high speeds, hence the name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_tape

> If you're going to propose an institutional solution by legislative fiat, do it right or don't do it at all.

This is not the world we operate in unfortunately.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Use of speed tape should be authorized by engineering teams and comply with certain requirements. Fines can be levied against airlines that use it to make improper repairs.

Legislation is the polar opposite of a one-off repair that has to happen in the field under strict time and resource constraints. It generally applies to everyone, permanently, and inaction is equivalent to delegation to decentralized decisionmakers so you can take as long as you want to be deliberate and correct.

When the farmer fixes the tractor with baling wire and chewing gum, you give them credit for making do. When the tractor maker systematically does the same thing in the factory, it's time to get your tractors from someone else.

> This is not the world we operate in unfortunately.

The is/ought dichotomy is no excuse when you're the one deciding what to do or who to support, because it's you choosing what is with the opportunity to do as you ought.

[bryanlarsen]

> do it right or don't do it at all.

IOW, don't try to fix anything, since doing it perfectly is usually impossible.

[AnthonyMouse]

There is a difference between imperfection and incompetence.

In one case you do things having thoroughly considered them and refrain from issuing mandates when their net benefit isn't large and unambiguous. A government that acts cautiously and deliberately and refrains from acting when that isn't possible is not one that never takes any action at all. You can be careful without being infallible.

In the other case you pass sloppy rubbish based on rhetoric and populism, don't solve the problem, create new problems, waste resources and divert attention from better solutions, often make the original problem worse and generally just make a hash of things because you're proposing something loud instead of something good.

And issuing no central mandate doesn't inherently mean the problem doesn't get solved, it just means it gets pushed to someone else who may have individual preferences or better context and allows different people to make different choices.

[bryanlarsen]

The only way anything like that could get through Congress is if one party had a filibuster proof majority in both houses. As I said, never.

[AnthonyMouse]

Every year some bills pass with wide bipartisan support. That isn't any guarantee that the bill is any good -- the Patriot Act passed with entirely too many votes in favor -- but in most cases they're simply bills with low opposition. Provide counseling for veterans or something.

Which is exactly what you get when you find the right solution and nobody has any reason to object to it. But if you haven't found the right solution, go back and try harder instead of passing something wrong.