5 ms·

> and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ide

> and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ideologically committed to "starving the [state]." [1] The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a hand in designing and implementing this arbitration strategy, before he was appointed to the court. Afterwards he supported it in his opinions. [2] The current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is actively trying to undermine its mission [3], and wants to shift its focus away from consumer protection to "business costs." [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra... [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvaney-killing-the-cfpb-20180417-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvan... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business-costs-in-cfpb-reorganization-1525972114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business...

Domenic_S 8y ago
I’m out.
- blindwatchmaker 8y ago
  I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
      - philwelch 8y ago
        "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
        philwelch 8y ago
        There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
        chc 8y ago
        Are you saying you don't see any connection between decades of leaders who believe the government should have its funding cut and be less involved in business, and the fact that the government is so starved for resources that it can scarcely afford to get involved in businesses' disputes? There appears to be a pretty straightforward cause-and-effect relationship there.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between the State and businesses -- lower caseload for an already overworked court system, and lower costs for business. Since those are the groups with power in the situation, it is only logical that they would choose arbitration. These two explanations aren't even contradictory unless the state is motivated by profit, which it clearly isn't, so your comment seems like a bit of a red herring. Your comment makes an implicit assumption that the goal of the state ought to be maximizing its revenue to expenses ratio. Some (e.g., the writers of the US constitution and the bill of rights) believe the state's interests ought to be aligned with those of the underlying population. When the goal of the state flips from "profit" to "maximize general welfare", it's no longer obvious that "decreasing court expenses" at the expense of "eroding consumer protections" is necessarily in the state's best interest.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The goal of the state doesn't have to be the profit of the state itself. It could be that those in charge of the government would have as their aim the profits of private companies, in which case lowering taxes on those companies would fall in line with that aim.

Domenic_S 8y ago

I’m out.

blindwatchmaker 8y ago
I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.
- philwelch 8y ago
  One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
    - philwelch 8y ago
      "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
      - Lionsion 8y ago
        > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
        philwelch 8y ago
        There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
        chc 8y ago
        Are you saying you don't see any connection between decades of leaders who believe the government should have its funding cut and be less involved in business, and the fact that the government is so starved for resources that it can scarcely afford to get involved in businesses' disputes? There appears to be a pretty straightforward cause-and-effect relationship there.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
throwawayjava 8y ago
> What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between the State and businesses -- lower caseload for an already overworked court system, and lower costs for business. Since those are the groups with power in the situation, it is only logical that they would choose arbitration. These two explanations aren't even contradictory unless the state is motivated by profit, which it clearly isn't, so your comment seems like a bit of a red herring. Your comment makes an implicit assumption that the goal of the state ought to be maximizing its revenue to expenses ratio. Some (e.g., the writers of the US constitution and the bill of rights) believe the state's interests ought to be aligned with those of the underlying population. When the goal of the state flips from "profit" to "maximize general welfare", it's no longer obvious that "decreasing court expenses" at the expense of "eroding consumer protections" is necessarily in the state's best interest.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The goal of the state doesn't have to be the profit of the state itself. It could be that those in charge of the government would have as their aim the profits of private companies, in which case lowering taxes on those companies would fall in line with that aim.