4 ms·

Some conservatives (if you didn't know, we're not all the same, we're not all pro-Trump) argue that when government is given a new power, it will use it in ways

Some conservatives (if you didn't know, we're not all the same, we're not all pro-Trump) argue that when government is given a new power, it will use it in ways that were unexpected. I don't know the particulars raised in this article well, but it looks like a good example of this - it is unwise to pass laws assuming your team will always be in power. You shouldn't cheer a president who threatens to "use his pen and phone" to get what he wants regardless of process, because someday someone else will be holding that same pen. It is entirely predictable that a law allowing you to target companies you don't like will be used by someone else to target companies you do. I hold out hope that the Trump administration serves to the left as a demonstration of the merits of limited government, but this author's we-just-need-our-judges approach makes me skeptical this lesson will be learned.

mcherm 7y ago
I think the article's author made two points -- one quite sensible and the other very much subject to the criticism you raise. I thought the useful point was, "In recent decades antitrust law has shifted to consider only the impact on a narrow swath of society (the direct customers of the accused antitrust violator)." Aside from that though, I agree with your criticism of modern liberalism.
mcv 7y ago
> "Some conservatives (if you didn't know, we're not all the same, we're not all pro-Trump) argue that when government is given a new power, it will use it in ways that were unexpected." And they demonstrate it as soon as they are in power. If a government is determined to abuse its power in ways that were never intended, laws aren't going to stop that. You need elections to stop that. The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. > "I hold out hope that the Trump administration serves to the left as a demonstration of the merits of limited government" It mostly serves as a demonstration of the dangers of governmental overreach, and the dangers of voting for the party that put this government in power. It's a bit weird to suggest that the party behind it is innocent of their own overreach or abuse of power and blame it all on the laws, when it's the government that makes the laws, executes them, and in this case twists them into the opposite of what they're meant for.
- darkerside 7y ago
  > The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. In a democracy, determining what a certain law was "intended for" by all of the various parties who supported its passage is a bit of a false question. When bills are complicated, it's because they serve many masters. So who's intention is the actual intention behind the bill? I think of laws like software for running people. And users always end up using your software on ways you don't expect. Also, if the governing people/party is really intent on abusing power, voting is probably not going to stop it.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >if the governing people/party is really intent on abusing power, voting is probably not going to stop it. As long as people still believe in the rule of law voting them out will usually get the pendulum swinging the other way.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. How can we not when all of our options are going to do that, just in different ways?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mcv 7y ago
    What the US really needs is more than two options. The problem is that the first-past-the-post district system ensures you can't really have more than two viable parties. A different electoral system would give voters more options. Sadly, changing the electoral system has to be done by the parties that benefit from the current system, or the voters have to miraculously all decide to vote for the same third-party option.
    - 7y ago

mcherm 7y ago

I think the article's author made two points -- one quite sensible and the other very much subject to the criticism you raise. I thought the useful point was, "In recent decades antitrust law has shifted to consider only the impact on a narrow swath of society (the direct customers of the accused antitrust violator)." Aside from that though, I agree with your criticism of modern liberalism.

mcv 7y ago

> "Some conservatives (if you didn't know, we're not all the same, we're not all pro-Trump) argue that when government is given a new power, it will use it in ways that were unexpected." And they demonstrate it as soon as they are in power. If a government is determined to abuse its power in ways that were never intended, laws aren't going to stop that. You need elections to stop that. The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. > "I hold out hope that the Trump administration serves to the left as a demonstration of the merits of limited government" It mostly serves as a demonstration of the dangers of governmental overreach, and the dangers of voting for the party that put this government in power. It's a bit weird to suggest that the party behind it is innocent of their own overreach or abuse of power and blame it all on the laws, when it's the government that makes the laws, executes them, and in this case twists them into the opposite of what they're meant for.

darkerside 7y ago
> The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. In a democracy, determining what a certain law was "intended for" by all of the various parties who supported its passage is a bit of a false question. When bills are complicated, it's because they serve many masters. So who's intention is the actual intention behind the bill? I think of laws like software for running people. And users always end up using your software on ways you don't expect. Also, if the governing people/party is really intent on abusing power, voting is probably not going to stop it.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >if the governing people/party is really intent on abusing power, voting is probably not going to stop it. As long as people still believe in the rule of law voting them out will usually get the pendulum swinging the other way.
vonmoltke 7y ago
> The problem is that people keep voting for politicians who abuse that power and use it in ways that it was never meant for. How can we not when all of our options are going to do that, just in different ways?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mcv 7y ago
  What the US really needs is more than two options. The problem is that the first-past-the-post district system ensures you can't really have more than two viable parties. A different electoral system would give voters more options. Sadly, changing the electoral system has to be done by the parties that benefit from the current system, or the voters have to miraculously all decide to vote for the same third-party option.
  - 7y ago