24 ms·

The last quote you pulled is just a misinterpretation of what I meant, and the rest is just "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bure

The last quote you pulled is just a misinterpretation of what I meant, and the rest is just "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic. You can make a better argument than that, can't you? As for "the problems that occurred the last time we tried that": one of the links on the front page from HN is exactly about how the US is closer to a civil war now than people think. If stability is the main function of the Federal Government, it looks like they are not doing a good job.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> the rest is just "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic" No, pointing out that we tried the extremely loose federation of states without federal taxes model, it produced real problems, and the model under the Constitution was an attempt to solve that, so if you want to argue for a return to that older model you need to acknowledge that, propose a fix within that model to the problems, or make an actual argument as to why those things that were seen as problems are actually desirable is not "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic. History exists, your breezy offhand suggestions need to acknowledge and address it if you want then to be taken seriously. Neither is pointing out that UBI by a entity structurally not empowered to exercise boundary controlon the population to which it is universally applicable, and therefore non-federal government in the present US Constitutional system, is problematic "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic. > If stability is the main function of the Federal Government, it looks like they are not doing a good job. Not that anyone has argued “stability is the main function of the Federal Government”, so that’s kind of a non-sequitur, but based on, and compared to, what exactly?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> the rest is just "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic" No, pointing out that we tried the extremely loose federation of states without federal taxes model, it produced real problems, and the model under the Constitution was an attempt to solve that, so if you want to argue for a return to that older model you need to acknowledge that, propose a fix within that model to the problems, or make an actual argument as to why those things that were seen as problems are actually desirable is not "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic. History exists, your breezy offhand suggestions need to acknowledge and address it if you want then to be taken seriously. Neither is pointing out that UBI by a entity structurally not empowered to exercise boundary controlon the population to which it is universally applicable, and therefore non-federal government in the present US Constitutional system, is problematic "the bureaucracy needs grow to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy" circular logic. > If stability is the main function of the Federal Government, it looks like they are not doing a good job. Not that anyone has argued “stability is the main function of the Federal Government”, so that’s kind of a non-sequitur, but based on, and compared to, what exactly?