Politics isn't a compromise, it's a ratchet. The laws the entrenched interests want are rarely repealed - they are only passed. So we get the DMCA, but we never compromise and eliminate some of the bad parts. We get SOPA (perhaps watered down), and once it's passed, we'll never eliminate the bad parts. Then they try again.
In much the same way, the emergency of 9/11 is over, yet the patriot act still lives. Similarly, bureaucracies get created, but never seem to get destroyed.
Compromise slows things down, but it never seems to stop it. And compromise always goes one way. That's why we can't be satisfied with compromise.
Very few governments will ever willfully simplify themselves. The trend is always for more complexity, more departments, more officials, more wars, more government employees. This happened with the Maya, the Romans, the Egyptians, and practically ever other fallen civilization. That's because a civilization gets used to solving problems in a certain way and when they start to get a negative marginal return on their investment, they keep trudging along and eventually the society collapses unless there's a new source of technological capability that can keep things moving along. Anyway, that's just Joseph A. Tainter's "Collapse Of Complex Societies" in a nutshell for ya'.
Isn't this sentiment self-fulfilling, if shared by enough people? (full disclosure: although I don't work in politics, I live in DC and my SO works in congress).
When Lamar Smith held hearings on the bill, Google was the only anti-SOPA tech company invited to speak. Truth is, Google was a cynical choice for the token opposition, since they aren't very popular in congress right now — because of anti-trust, among other things — and they're terribly disorganized when it comes to politics. So there was no real tech input in crafting or modifying this legislation (I don't count GoDaddy). If this response is genuine in its request for legislation crafted by both sides of the issue, it will not be an amended version of any of the current bills. Anyway, I'm told that it's extremely unlikely SOPA will make it out of committee — non-judiciary members who don't have a stake in the issue are inclined to vote no after being flooded by constituent calls, and leadership doesn't like to introduce bills on the floor of the house that won't pass.
If you're offered a seat at the table, isn't it better to try to influence the process? Sure, if you get steam-rolled and ignored you have every right to complain and be angry, but why not do so when and if that happens, not before?
Better example: 18th amendment (1919) vs. 21st amendment (1933). Prohibition empowered three bureaucracies that were then disempowered over a dozen years later. I don't see how that can be seen as a ratchet.
There are many such examples from all over the world; millions if you look at the actual details of laws, rather than just the broad strokes.
Things are much worse now than they were pre-Prohibition. We have the awful three-tier system which means higher prices and less choice for consumers. Not to mention the accumulated brewing knowledge that was lost by Prohibition + a 45 year ban on homebrewing. It's only in the past 20 or so years that we've begun to undo the damage, and we're still worse off.
I would pick a different example. The 21st Amendment rescinded much of the power 18th Amendment gave, but then retained: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
So, perfect example of the ratchet effect: go forward, but then not all the way back. Okay, okay, ratchets don't allow any backward movement, but close enough.
Sure it does. Womens suffrage didnt repeal any laws, remove ant government powers, or destroy any beauracracies. Try repealing the 19th amendment and see how far you get.
In much the same way, the emergency of 9/11 is over, yet the patriot act still lives. Similarly, bureaucracies get created, but never seem to get destroyed.
Compromise slows things down, but it never seems to stop it. And compromise always goes one way. That's why we can't be satisfied with compromise.