Technically, Chesterton fence means that if something exists for no good reason, you are never allowed to remove it.
Because, before you even propose the removal, you must demonstrate your understanding of a good reason why the thing exists. And if there is none...
More precisely, it seems to me there is a motte and bailey version of Chesterton fence: the motte is that everything exists for a reason; the bailey is that everything exists for a good reason. The difference is, when someone challenges you to provide an understanding why a fence was built, whether answers such as "because someone made a mistake" or "because of regulatory capture" or "because a bad person did it to harm someone" are allowed.
On one hand, such explanations feel cheap. A conspiracy theorist could explain literally everything by "because evil outgroup did it to hurt people, duh". On the other hand, yes, sometimes things happen because people are stupid or selfish; what exactly am I supposed to do if someone calls a Chesterton fence on that?
The difference is, when someone challenges you to provide an understanding why a fence was built, whether answers such as "because someone made a mistake" or "because of regulatory capture" or "because a bad person did it to harm someone" are allowed.
If a fence is build because of regulatory capture, it's usually the case that the lobbyists who argued for the regulation made a case for the law that isn't just about their own self-interest.
It takes effort to track down the arguments that were made for the regulation that goes beyond what reasons you c... (read more)