
The Shirky Principle - jlhamilton
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/04/the_shirky_prin.php
======
erikstarck
"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the
solution." -- Clay Shirky

This is brilliantly well put and one of the most important reasons capitalism
works so much better than any other system: destruction of the preserving
institutions is built in to the process.

"Too big to fail", on the other hand, is something completely different.

~~~
gruseom
_capitalism works so much better than any other system: destruction of the
preserving institutions is built in to the process._

Boy did you pick the wrong decade to argue this.

(The point being that it's a weakness of capitalism, or at least of the
contemporary system everybody calls capitalism, that institutions that would
otherwise die off are able to preserve themselves through political influence
and other unsavory means.)

~~~
lotharbot
That's not a weakness of capitalism (an economic system), but a weakness in
the way our regulatory agencies and legislatures interact (our political
system).

People who call themselves "capitalists" typically want to reform the
political end of things so it stops distorting the economic system.

~~~
exit
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

~~~
lotharbot
"My friend is Scottish, and therefore a jerk." "I think his Scottishness is
incidental to being a jerk. There are more relevant factors that contribute to
his jerkness. He may be both Scottish and a jerk, but that doesn't imply
causation."

This is not an example of No True Scotsman. Just an example of criticism that
should be labelled differently.

------
gruseom
This is a variation of a famous aphorism by one of the founders of sociology
to the effect that an institution's first purpose is to perpetuate itself and
only secondarily to achieve its stated goal. I heard it years ago, attributed
to Durkheim, I think, though I was unable to find an attribution the last time
I looked. Perhaps someone here knows?

In any case, it isn't original enough to be named after Shirky (from what
little I've read of whom, he's flexible-minded enough not to care).

------
jamesbressi
Wow, doesn't that seem to sum up the institution of the Big Pharma industry?

I was just on a plane to New Orleans on Monday and sat next to a former high-
level employee at a pharma company who even said "we were in the business of
managing sickness, not curing it."

------
timf
I'm shocked, humans and human institutions act in their own self interest?

If an institution's strongest aim is e.g. profit/preservation (as it often is)
then of course it is trying to preserve or create conditions where the product
or service is attractive. This often includes undermining better solutions.

Just look at the lobbying money flowing through Washington DC for blatant
examples. Other situations are more subtle.

------
betageek
Your missing the point - any social construction that provides a solution to a
problem no longer has a point if that problem ceases to exist. Therefore the
construction will not just act to preserve itself, it will try to preserve
it's antithesis.

It's not just acting in it's own interests, in extreme cases it's prolonging
the very thing it's set up to destroy.

In other words - Batman / Joker

------
neilk
This is a generalization of Neil K's law of software consultancy: "Any firm
that calls itself a solutions provider is actually a problem provider".

I mean that literally. The consultant offers a solution to an acute problem,
in exchange for the client voluntarily accepting a chronic problem.

Typically, only open source or open standard technologies actually _solve_
problems.

~~~
antidaily
I've done enough one-off consulting projects to know that's completely
bullshit.

~~~
neilk
Settle down, it's meant to be amusing and I'm not insulting you personally.
Unless you call yourself a solutions provider?

------
known

        Socialism is preventing race to the bottom
        Capitalism is promoting race to the top

------
naner
That quote was from Jobs in 1997. Now look where Apple is now and see if
they've made any similar comments. Apple was more vulnerable back then.

The fact of the matter is Microsoft executives are still openly hostile
towards free software, always threatening they own IP that overlaps with a lot
of open source. This is why Amazon pays Microsoft for Linux patent coverage
and why TomTom gets sued for using open source FAT32 drivers. So it makes
sense to be wary.

~~~
naner
Ah, dammit. Wrong thread and now I can't delete it. :/

