> I, for one, think that mission-oriented organizations should be more willing to admit that they're done and disband rather than endlessly expanding.
what incentive mechanism could possibly facilitate this? because without one, it's not going to happen, whether you or anyone thinks it "should" or not.
this is an open question that seems to be rarely if ever discussed. when presented with any sort of "anti-x" organization (for example), I always wonder: why should I trust this organization as having the definitive position on whether their stated goals have ever been achieved? it seems brazenly obvious that, without any sort of incentive to the contrary, they'll just keep moving the x goalpost such that they can claim x is still an issue, worthy of there being an "anti-x" organization to fight it. this seems like quite the predicament, because obviously sometimes there are xes that need to be opposed by organized groups of people—but how can they possibly be held accountable for remaining on-mission, and, more importantly, for being an authoritative source on societal progress with regards to x?
