The other problem with bureaucracy: "We must do something! This is something. Let's do it." Just because it's important to get something done, doesn't mean we should be satisfied with something that messes other stuff up.
Again, the far more common problem is the one I described. Lots of people say the problem you're describing is the bigger problem, but I've spent a lot of time in the adult world now, and I conclude that no, that is not the bigger problem, at least in the US.
I'm very pleased to see dissatisfaction of the form "this isn't good enough; here are ideas for incremental improvements to it", but have totally lost my patience with the far more common "this isn't good enough; we should do nothing instead".
Well, I agree it's the more overt problem. But having spent some time in the adult world myself, I find that the larger problem is partial solutions piled on partial solutions, burying users in piles of steaming bureaucracy that take time and effort to wade through. Like good software, it requires principles and discipline to construct correctly and avoid 'technical debt' - though a quick&dirty solution will certainly work in the short term.
I've noticed as well, it's quite common that when a well-constructed solution takes much more time (and may be harder to identify) than an quick fix, proponents of the quick fix will claim that the 'do it right' folks are actually saying we should do nothing.
We'll have to just agree to disagree :) We simply have different philosophies; you're a perfectionist whereas I'm an incrementalist. We both have life experiences and probably personality traits that lead us to our differing preferences.
In my view, "partial solutions piled on partial solutions" is just life as a human being, where the alternative to that is not perfect solutions with no piling required, but rather no solutions. And yes, it is just like software, where incrementalism is also the better approach, in my view.
> proponents of the quick fix will claim that the 'do it right' folks are actually saying we should do nothing.
We don't think you're actually saying we should do nothing, just that it's the common end result, despite your best intentions.
And in the sphere of politics in particular, I think well-meaning people who really do want better solutions are often used by more cynical people who really do want to do nothing, for their own ends. Like the tax software industry lobbyists, in this case. Or like how old school environmentalists often find themselves aligned with fossil fuel industry lobbyists when it comes to building renewable or nuclear power generation, or transmission lines.
I don't begrudge people their dislike of partial solutions, I just don't subscribe to the same strategy.
Granted, I think I used a somewhat different sense of the word "perfectionist" than the usual one, in an effort to contrast it with "incrementalist". I'm not sure what the better wording to contrast those things is; "incrementalist" vs. "full-solution-ist"?
