Opportinity Only Belongs to Those Who Have Earned It
Introduction
Bandwidth, as a metaphor for capacity and efficiency, represents the resources—mental, physical, social, or technological—available to accomplish tasks, solve problems, and foster progress. Mismanagement or misallocation of bandwidth erodes efficiency and creates systemic inefficiencies. One fundamental Bandwidth Truth is that permissions are not fungible. Permissions, by their nature, are specific, earned, trusted, and responsible. Treating permissions as interchangeable disrupts order, diminishes trust, and depletes collective bandwidth.
Permissions Are Specific
Permissions are granted within a defined scope and context, tailored to particular circumstances, individuals, or organizations. This specificity arises from the following interconnected principles:
Permissions Are Earned
Permissions must be earned through demonstrated competence, effort, or qualifications. This ensures that only capable individuals or entities are entrusted with particular responsibilities.
Example: A medical license is granted to a doctor who has completed extensive education, training, and certification. This permission cannot be handed to an untrained individual without risking harm to patients.
Bandwidth Implication: Misassigning permissions wastes bandwidth, as resources are diverted to address failures and rectify errors caused by unqualified actors.
Permissions Are a Trust
Permissions are granted with an implicit or explicit trust in the individual or organization. This trust represents confidence in their ability, ethics, and alignment with the mission of the permission-granting entity.
Example: A non-profit organization entrusted with disaster relief funds holds those funds as a sacred trust to aid affected communities.
Bandwidth Implication: Violating this trust depletes bandwidth by requiring additional resources to rebuild credibility and resolve conflicts.
Permissions Are a Responsibility
Every permission comes with responsibilities that dictate how it must be exercised. These obligations are specific to the context in which the permission is granted and often include ethical, legal, and operational considerations.
Example: An engineer’s permission to design infrastructure includes the responsibility to meet safety standards, ensuring public welfare.
Bandwidth Implication: Failure to uphold responsibilities drains bandwidth as systems grapple with the consequences of negligence or misconduct.
Why Permissions Are Not Fungible
The interplay between earning, trust, and responsibility underscores why permissions are non-fungible. Each permission is intrinsically tied to its context and cannot be transferred, replaced, or exchanged without risking inefficiency, harm, or erosion of trust.
Case Study Example:
Consider an aviation pilot licensed to fly commercial aircraft. Their permission is based on rigorous training and examination, as well as the trust of passengers and aviation authorities. Transferring this permission to an unqualified individual—even another licensed pilot for a different aircraft type—jeopardizes safety and operational bandwidth.
The Bandwidth Connection
Treating permissions as fungible introduces systemic inefficiencies and drains collective bandwidth:
Erosion of Trust: Misused or misallocated permissions undermine trust, requiring significant effort to rebuild confidence.
Inefficiency in Resource Allocation: Correcting errors from misallocated permissions diverts bandwidth from productive endeavors.
Risk Amplification: Incorrectly assigned permissions increase the likelihood of mistakes, accidents, or systemic failures, further straining resources.
Key Bandwidth Principles to Uphold Permission Specificity
Rigorous Qualification Processes: Permissions must only be granted following stringent assessments of competence, integrity, and alignment with mission objectives.
Clear Definitions and Boundaries: Clearly define the scope, context, and limitations of permissions to prevent misinterpretation or misuse.
Continuous Evaluation: Regularly review permissions to ensure they remain aligned with the current context and the evolving needs of the system.
Transparent Accountability Mechanisms: Establish systems to hold individuals and entities accountable for the permissions they exercise, reinforcing trust and responsibility.
Conclusion
Permissions are the linchpins of organized systems, enabling efficiency, progress, and trust. Their specificity, rooted in earning, trust, and responsibility, ensures that bandwidth is preserved and utilized effectively. Treating permissions as fungible undermines this foundation, leading to inefficiencies, errors, and systemic disruptions. By recognizing and respecting the non-fungible nature of permissions, systems can maintain order, foster innovation, and maximize their bandwidth to address the challenges of the future.