I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you believe it's generally possible to design an incentive system which is well-behaved in the asymptote of extreme competition whereas I do not, except under select conditions where the sum total of value provided by an individual is trivially quantifiable and separable from the contribution of his peers (e.g. assembly line work).
"Care must be taken" simply doesn't cut it; the comparison to assembly programming is ridiculous. For most devices it's hard to screw up badly enough to brick them and even if you do you are out, what, a few hundred dollars? Also, the feedback is unambiguous and instantaneous. Screw up a big organization and you are out millions or billions with only vague, ambiguous feeback that arrives years after you institute the policy. Even a comparison to rocket science doesn't come close to capturing the difficulty involved because rockets are designed to be separable into subsystems which obey well-characterized physical laws whereas most creative processes can't be broken down so rigorously.
The hypothetical perfect incentive system is like the hypothetical analog computer which gives you infinite accuracy and precision for free: it only appears to be an exciting possibility if you neglect all of the factors that limit its efficacy in practice.
I think it works really well in adversarial contexts. I'd guess the best is probably law. Win cases, bill hours. Lack of ethics are exploited ruthlessly by the opposition - that's grounds for appeal.
Somewhat less effectively, sales. Car salesmen have horrible reputations, but lots of technical sales are smart, knowledgeable and helpful. I think the long term relationship aspect helps.
Even less effective, but still clearly in use is finance. Insider trading and collusion are tough to prove, and there's not much incentive to keep the system in check. But finance clearly takes advantage of up or out.
Bricking a device is a fine analogy. Sometimes the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. I think this is one of those times. You seem to agree, we're just not clear on stakes. I think the slippery slope exists in a 2 person startup all the way up to microsoft or google.
Perfect anything is a pipe dream. "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried". If somebody wants to try a social experiment with their investors money, best of luck to them. It's unlikely i'd invest or be interested in working there though.
"Care must be taken" simply doesn't cut it; the comparison to assembly programming is ridiculous. For most devices it's hard to screw up badly enough to brick them and even if you do you are out, what, a few hundred dollars? Also, the feedback is unambiguous and instantaneous. Screw up a big organization and you are out millions or billions with only vague, ambiguous feeback that arrives years after you institute the policy. Even a comparison to rocket science doesn't come close to capturing the difficulty involved because rockets are designed to be separable into subsystems which obey well-characterized physical laws whereas most creative processes can't be broken down so rigorously.
The hypothetical perfect incentive system is like the hypothetical analog computer which gives you infinite accuracy and precision for free: it only appears to be an exciting possibility if you neglect all of the factors that limit its efficacy in practice.