Rethinking Governance: The Dangers of ‘Move Fast and Break Things’

For as long as I can remember, there has been a persistent argument that the government should be run more like a business. The reasoning behind this idea is that businesses must be efficient to maintain profitability, while government is often perceived as an inefficient, fraud-ridden bureaucracy that wastes taxpayer money.

A tech-driven mindset, particularly evident in the Trump administration, has reshaped governance. This approach is encapsulated in the Silicon Valley mantra: “Move fast and break things.” Few would dispute that the Trump administration moved with unprecedented speed in implementing a tech-like operational style. The philosophy behind this approach in the tech world is that rapid iteration reveals weaknesses, allowing for swift corrections or eliminations of inefficient elements. But should this mentality be applied to the federal government?

This raises a critical question: Does this approach make sense for governance?

Does it make sense to shut down a veterans’ crisis hotline just to observe the reaction, only to reopen it with a simple mea culpa?
Should we institute mass layoffs in the name of cost savings without considering the essential services those employees provide to taxpayers? A prime example is the firing of an entire team responsible for managing America’s nuclear arsenal.

In this post, I turn to Immanuel Kant for guidance. Kant (1724-1804), a central figure of the Enlightenment, made significant contributions to epistemology, ethics, and political philosophy. His essay, An Answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment?” serves as the foundation for this discussion, particularly in examining the role of reason and why individuals in society matter when engaging in decision-making.

Throughout this post, I will revisit Kant’s essay and use it as a lens to critique the “move fast and break things” mentality in governance. Kant believed in universal maxims, emphasizing that stability and rational discourse should outweigh the impulse to act quickly. In government, breaking things is not an option—the costs to individuals, communities, and society as a whole are simply too high.

The Role of Reason in Governance

To understand why a fast-moving, tech-inspired approach is problematic in governance, we must first define Kant’s notion of enlightenment. Kant describes enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.” This immaturity, according to him, stems from relying on others to think and make decisions on one’s behalf. His directive is clear: “Have courage to use your own understanding.”

But how does this principle apply differently in a private company versus a government institution?

In private companies, which are typically profit-driven, decisions flow from the top down. Employees and mid-level managers are not necessarily encouraged to question the validity of strategic goals; rather, they are expected to execute them efficiently, even if that means surrendering independent reasoning.

In contrast, government institutions are structured to ensure public reasoning is both recognized and respected. While this deliberative process is often criticized as inefficient, it exists to safeguard people’s livelihoods—whether that means ensuring access to food assistance, maintaining emergency services for veterans, or upholding diplomatic responsibilities.

The deliberate pace of government decision-making is crucial because rash actions can have devastating consequences. Unlike a tech company adjusting its algorithm, government policies impact real lives in profound ways. Consider the Department of State’s decision to deny medical evacuation funding for a foreign service officer’s wife due to budget cuts. By the time a U.S. senator intervened to override the decision, the woman had suffered life-threatening complications.

Government is not, and should never be, driven by profit. Its purpose is to provide stability and protect the well-being of its citizens. This leads us to the next concern: the dangers of ceding decision-making power to a select few “guardians.”

The Danger of “Guardians” Making Decisions for the Public

Kant warns against the perils of allowing others to think on our behalf. He writes, “If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet—I have no need to exert myself.” Though convenient, it ultimately leads to a loss of autonomy.

This creates two major problems:

If those in power are motivated by profit, they may seek to extract more while providing less.
If individuals fail to exercise independent thought, they may become subject to arbitrary or harmful decisions made by so-called experts.

The implications for governance are clear. In tech companies, decisions are often made unilaterally without public deliberation. When Facebook abruptly ended its fact-checking division and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, employees noted how swiftly the decision was enacted. Unlike democratic institutions, tech companies are beholden only to their leadership and board members, not to the public.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent such centralized power. The separation of powers ensures that no single branch dictates policy without checks and balances. This structure compels citizens to actively engage in decision-making rather than passively accepting governance by an elite few.

Public Use of Reason vs. Private Use of Reason

Kant distinguishes between the public and private use of reason.

Public use of reason involves open debate and discourse on societal issues.
Private use of reason refers to the application of reasoning within an assigned role or office.

In the U.S. government, Congress exercises public reason by debating and passing laws. Once enacted, the federal bureaucracy is responsible for executing these laws within their institutional roles. Breaking this structure results in chaos—a reality evident in the early Trump administration, where rapid personnel turnover and abrupt policy shifts created instability.

In contrast, private corporations operate primarily on private use of reason. Employees may engage in discussions with their superiors, but ultimately, they must comply with directives. This lack of public deliberation is acceptable in business but disastrous in governance.

Stability as a Condition for Enlightenment

Kant observes, “A revolution may put an end to autocratic despotism and oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in the ways of thinking.” In other words, meaningful change requires stability.

A “move fast and break things” approach erodes institutional trust. Frequent upheaval makes it impossible for citizens to rely on government services, leading to widespread disillusionment.

Even with regular elections, a functional bureaucracy ensures continuity. However, recent governance styles have threatened this stability, leaving citizens uncertain about the policies that will govern their lives from one day to the next.

Is Speed Always Bad?

Advocates of a faster government argue that bureaucratic inefficiencies stifle progress and innovation. They point to outdated policies, slow-moving agencies and political gridlock as justification for a more agile, business-like model.

While it’s true that some government processes could benefit from modernization, the core issue is not speed itself but the reckless disregard for reasoned deliberation. In Kantian terms, reforms must be guided by universal principles and a commitment to public reasoning—not impulsive decisions aimed at immediate results. Without stability, the very foundation of democracy is at risk.

Throughout this post, I have explored Kant’s ideas on enlightenment in the context of modern governance. The purpose of government is not efficiency or profitability, but rather to facilitate public discourse and deliberation. This stands in stark contrast to the “move fast and break things” mentality.

We must reject the pursuit of speed and efficiency for its own sake. Instead, we must demand a return to deliberate, reasoned policy making that respects the rights of all citizens. Enlightenment is not about deferring to a select few; it is about actively participating in democracy and safeguarding our collective future.