2 ms·
Unless there is actual political will to curb the very powerful in the interest of the less powerful, any scheme like this is unlikely to result in much. One o
by jwatte 10y ago
Unless there is actual political will to curb the very powerful in the interest of the less powerful, any scheme like this is unlikely to result in much.
One of the make reasons the federal government is sometimes less effective than we want, is that the powerful and paranoid want it that way. They put hurdles in the way of government that would make any corporation very foul, and then they blame the government for being slow.
Sure, the government is special because it has the power to compel citizens, but that's what it's /for/. We can't do without it. (Well, the bottom 99.9% can't)
- wyager 10y ago> One of the make reasons the federal government is sometimes less effective than we want, is that the powerful and paranoid want it that way. I'm not particularly powerful nor paranoid, but I also like there being checks and balances on the government. I shouldn't really need to explain why that is.
- knowaveragejoe 10y agoI don't think there is anyone here doubting that premise.
- 0xcde4c3db 10y agoChecks and balances haven't really worked the way they were designed to for over 100 years. The political parties (which didn't exist in their modern form when the Constitution was written) cut across the separation of powers, and so hold much of the power to control how fast policy changes go. This is part of why the Presidential election holds so much interest despite the President nominally not having a great deal of power over domestic policy: we aren't just electing someone to the office of President, we're also electing them de-facto party leader and endorsing their interpretation of the party platform. What we're seeing lately isn't the operation of checks and balances, it's a mix of partisan obstructionism, officials across both parties deferring to donors, and officials being out of touch with "the 99%" (most members of Congress are millionaires and get VIP treatment from various companies, such as expedited customer service).
- wyager 10y ago> partisan obstructionism This is just a negatively connoted way of describing one of the most fundamental checks and balances we have. Politicians are supposed to obstruct each other. If it's not a manifestly good idea, it's generally better if they don't do it.