4 ms·

If laws forbid what you want to do, you're clearly, by definition, not in power.

throwaway2048 5y ago
The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
  - maxbond 5y ago
    I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
      - maxbond 5y ago
        > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
        BurningFrog 5y ago
        "So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.
        maxbond 5y ago
        And yet, here you are, responding with a vague observation, which you don't attempt to justify applies to this particular situation. On a website without notifications, you checked your threads in order to see if I had responded, in order to tell me how my fantasies weren't worth your time. I think it's quite telling that you described us as "opponents." You aren't actually here to discuss anything, you're here to "win." That's why you're throwing out opinions you don't hold, and why you can't admit you're wrong without wrapping it in an insinuation that I am more wrong. That's why you keep responding, even if it's only to assert I'm not worth responding to. To put my cards on the table, I care about this conversation, I care about what the truth of this matter is, and I want to either change your mind or have my mind changed. I think you care too. I think you're cloaking your ideas in a veneer of detachment to protect yourself from taking my criticism seriously. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.
        maxbond 5y ago
        Upon reflection, I acknowledge this comment was too far, and I apologize for making it.
maxbond 5y ago
So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
- 8note 5y ago
  Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
  - maxbond 5y ago
    So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
  - paisawalla 5y ago
    > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."

throwaway2048 5y ago

The point of a nation of laws is to restrain the powerful, the powerful don't need laws to do what they want done, and the law is the only safe redress the abused have against them. Which is why unpunished abuses of the law by elites in society is so damaging in the long run, it erodes the very foundation of what it means to be a just society.

BurningFrog 5y ago
By that definition, it's hard to understand why the powerful don't just use their power to stop the legislation holding them back. I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
- maxbond 5y ago
  I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself. Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Sure. I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. Such is life on the forums sometimes.
    - maxbond 5y ago
      > I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously? I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it. That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
      - BurningFrog 5y ago
        "So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.
        maxbond 5y ago
        And yet, here you are, responding with a vague observation, which you don't attempt to justify applies to this particular situation. On a website without notifications, you checked your threads in order to see if I had responded, in order to tell me how my fantasies weren't worth your time. I think it's quite telling that you described us as "opponents." You aren't actually here to discuss anything, you're here to "win." That's why you're throwing out opinions you don't hold, and why you can't admit you're wrong without wrapping it in an insinuation that I am more wrong. That's why you keep responding, even if it's only to assert I'm not worth responding to. To put my cards on the table, I care about this conversation, I care about what the truth of this matter is, and I want to either change your mind or have my mind changed. I think you care too. I think you're cloaking your ideas in a veneer of detachment to protect yourself from taking my criticism seriously. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.
        maxbond 5y ago
        Upon reflection, I acknowledge this comment was too far, and I apologize for making it.

maxbond 5y ago

So if I were the President, and I attempted to appoint an unqualified judge and was denied by Congress, you would argue that I don't hold power? Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.

8note 5y ago
Yes. A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges. Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
- maxbond 5y ago
  So, hucksters cannot be regulated because they don't hold absolute power? Indeed, we can't even talk about power differentials unless there is absolute power? That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
Spooky23 5y ago
In a democratic society, the power of the executive is defined by law. The President is a powerful individual, but he is not a King. By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress. The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
- paisawalla 5y ago
  > The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)" It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities. Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."