Rather than ranking the proposal against some version of protection, I evaluate it in terms of: would more good stuff happen with the proposal than without it?
Clearly it would. Clearly having SOME additional number of people admitted who are at least doing SOME version of a startup would be a positive step.
The number of things that have to go wrong to make this proposal a net negative are unrealistically perverse and pessimisitc. If EVERY policy proposal is held to a standard of "we will only do this if there is NO CONCIEVABLE WAY of ever making it be bad," then no policy proposals would ever be implemented.
Think of it like a business. It is better to do something that is approximately right in a non-optimal fashion then it is to do nothing until you are exactly right or, as the poet says, to optimize too early.
Clearly it would. Clearly having SOME additional number of people admitted who are at least doing SOME version of a startup would be a positive step.
The number of things that have to go wrong to make this proposal a net negative are unrealistically perverse and pessimisitc. If EVERY policy proposal is held to a standard of "we will only do this if there is NO CONCIEVABLE WAY of ever making it be bad," then no policy proposals would ever be implemented.
Think of it like a business. It is better to do something that is approximately right in a non-optimal fashion then it is to do nothing until you are exactly right or, as the poet says, to optimize too early.