4 ms·

> that is not suppose to be political their execution shouldn't but their priortiies are entirely political mandates. When people felt unsafe in the 90s and t

> that is not suppose to be political their execution shouldn't but their priortiies are entirely political mandates. When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? Protecting business over people, as it currently stands in their priority list, is a political decision. Changing the status quo is not "political" and remaining as is isn't. Their current directives are poltiical assignments, and rerouting resources in a more worthy endevour is the same.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? No that was a change in legalization, which legislation is political, but the 90's saw TONS of anti-crime laws passed which required the non-political arms of the government to act that is how it is suppose to work, the people elect representative who pass laws, and then those laws are enforced by the non-political arm. These entities have become political in the wake of over criminalization since now as a function they have to "choose" which laws to enforce and which not to because other wise nothing would get enforced as a matter of course. The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be political, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be criminal, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . The assumption that there are too many laws and "non political" arms need to pick and choose which ones to apply is true. But I would consider that just part of reality. Economics is just the study of resource allocation, the goverment only has so many federal tax officers and they need to focus on something. If they focus on big accounts it doesn't make not paying VAT legal. It just less likely you get caught. Laws existing as a framework to express the current priorities of the goverment (aka tax avoidance bad) is useful even without enough officers to enforce it 100%. > One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds The libertarian angle is cool and all, but the political voice of the people has consistently voted for bigger gov not smaller, so you want to apply your own politics to make things "non poltiical". Which is not very consistent

phpisthebest 4y ago

>When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? No that was a change in legalization, which legislation is political, but the 90's saw TONS of anti-crime laws passed which required the non-political arms of the government to act that is how it is suppose to work, the people elect representative who pass laws, and then those laws are enforced by the non-political arm. These entities have become political in the wake of over criminalization since now as a function they have to "choose" which laws to enforce and which not to because other wise nothing would get enforced as a matter of course. The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be political, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be criminal, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . The assumption that there are too many laws and "non political" arms need to pick and choose which ones to apply is true. But I would consider that just part of reality. Economics is just the study of resource allocation, the goverment only has so many federal tax officers and they need to focus on something. If they focus on big accounts it doesn't make not paying VAT legal. It just less likely you get caught. Laws existing as a framework to express the current priorities of the goverment (aka tax avoidance bad) is useful even without enough officers to enforce it 100%. > One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds The libertarian angle is cool and all, but the political voice of the people has consistently voted for bigger gov not smaller, so you want to apply your own politics to make things "non poltiical". Which is not very consistent