5 ms·
In the interests of trying to add something new to the conversation- I just finished a poly sci book called The Economic Effects of Constitutions, which argues
by hash872 4y ago
In the interests of trying to add something new to the conversation- I just finished a poly sci book called The Economic Effects of Constitutions, which argues that presidential systems in general are less regulated, have lower taxes, and have a smaller welfare state than parliamentary systems. As it relates to regulating Big Tech, we can compare the US and Europe here. The book says that the multiple centers of power in presidential systems, especially bicameral ones, means that there are many separate powerful groups that must be appeased to pass even popular legislation with a consensus behind it. Here, a separately elected President has to grapple with a separately elected House, plus a Senate where two-thirds of the members were elected at a completely different time. Plus, party discipline is weaker in presidential systems, so he can't just whip his party to fall in line (most famously with Sinemanchin recently). 3rd party lobbying is then more powerful with weaker parties and separately elected reps who must cater to the marginal voter or power group in their district. Powerful interest groups are more powerful in a presidency!
Seeing as there's a broad but not ultra-strong consensus in both parties to Do Something with Big Tech, in a coalition parliamentary system a bill would've likely already passed. Whether you think that's good or bad is an exercise left up the reader, just wanted to introduce a new perspective :)
- pythonaut_16 4y agoThere's a strong argument to be made that in the American system this is a feature and not a bug. The whole thing is designed to make it difficult to make big changes, especially unilaterally. Whether the system is serving us well or needs adjustments is a different matter.
- gunapologist99 4y agoEven though I might be in favor of some variant of this bill, I'm really glad that it can't just be railroaded through without adequate debate. The "tyranny of the majority" can be a very real thing, and we need to be mindful that the tension between powers (separation of powers) was put there explicitly for this purpose -- to prevent a single powerful group from seizing control.
- pfhayes 4y agoBut this isn't a big change? This is a bill with bipartisan support in congress, and it's my understanding that it has majority (but not 60%) support. If this is difficult, then everything is difficult. How can a governing body being impeded on its most fundamental duties be considered a feature?
- dane-pgp 4y ago“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89101-those-who-make-peaceful-revolution-impossible-will-make-violent-revolution https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89101-those-who-make-peacef...
- cato_the_elder 4y agoOne interpretation of Kennedy's quote is that it's essentially a threat to violence by those who want some kind of radical change. When made by the US president (to Latin America [1]), that probably needs to be taken seriously. [1]: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-first-anniversary-the-alliance-for-progress https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-the-first-...
- notacoward 4y agoThere's an argument, but not a strong one. What can be passed quickly can be amended or even repealed quickly. Many countries have done OK with that. Stasis is a bad strategy in such a quickly changing world, and the empirical results seem to support the theory. Built-in gridlock is dumb.