4 ms·

It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what

It's good to let agencies make laws if they make good laws. It's bad to let agencies make laws if they make bad laws. The liberal obsession with process is what lets the far right make inroads everywhere, since they don't share it.

tristor 4y ago
What is good law and what is bad law? This is subjective, and likely shifts with the context of the surrounding society. Law is not morality, even though it may derive from social mores. For this reason, process is crucially important to prevent tyranny.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other way is madness.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers, even good laws are evil.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Unless they're corrupt in my favor!
      - notch656c 4y ago
        Lets be honest, the common American does not have the bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their favor unless they move to the third world where their dollars go further and corruption is even more accessible.
        ElevenLathe 4y ago
        This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor policies. The point of all political economy is to corrupt the system of money and power in your personal favor (including your friends, people with similar class interests, your family, etc.). Sometimes that means "anti-corruption" but it's simply a bad idea (pointless, stupid, naive) to point out that some official is corrupt if they are doing what you want them to instead of what someone else does.
        djur 4y ago
        I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of kicking the can down the road: how do workers collectively decide what is in their interest and what isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to this question have generally ranged from "something that looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".
        ElevenLathe 4y ago
        Sure, that's the tough part of left politics. Capital has it easy, they can just pay people to do what they want. We have to get along and (more or less) agree.
idiotsecant 4y ago
So this sounds like a monarchy with extra steps.
lolinder 4y ago
My conservative dad said the exact same thing—almost word for word, just reversed—about liberals and process in 2009. I'm inclined to believe that there are groups of every political persuasion who believe the end justifies the means. EDIT: To clarify, I mean that my dad said that liberals will do anything to accomplish their goals while conservatives play nice. The same idea but in reverse. This is why I think that what is actually happening is that there's a small group of people in any movement that believe the end justifies the means, but it's hard to see the ones in your own movement because you agree with them.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  That's the left's problem IMO. The right knows that their game is to gain power and use it to achieve goals. The liberal left (which is most of it if we're honest) thinks they are just trying to gain enough power to make everyone play by the rules. The problem is that there is not enough power in the world to make your enemies bargain in good faith. Anyway this derailed from the OP which is about some new rules that might slightly tip the power in the employer-employee relationship in favor of employees. As an employee (leftists like to say "worker" but it means the same thing), this would be good for me.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    No, I'm saying that my dad gave me this exact lecture in 2009 but in reverse—he said that the problem with the right is that they play nice while the liberals will do anything it takes to take power and accomplish their goals. Literally the exact same thing that you're saying but in reverse. I think what it actually is is that there are factions within each group who match your description and it is hard to see the faction in your own group because you agree with them.
    - taeric 4y ago
      I know it will sound like a slight to your dad, but in 2009 many conservative news outlets were pushing this narrative extremely heavily. And, I don't recall any actual evidence to back it up. It was more a weaponized accusation, much as marital infidelity was in the mid/late 90s. Worse, by all evidence since then, the record seems to be far more in the opposite direction. :(
sailfast 4y ago
Agencies do not make laws, full stop. Agencies are empowered by congress via laws to regulate industries. These regulations can be challenged in court as to whether they have overreached the scope of their regulation written in the original law, but they are not making laws. Agencies should not make laws (in the United States). Even good ones.
- notch656c 4y ago
  They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only difference is a letter from an ATF agent. Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine" the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame for what they planned all along.
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, they’d need, I don’t know, a group of experts who understand firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or remove items from a list. May be they’ll give this group a name at some point and then they’d realise that it’s really hard to manage all this while also having to make new laws. So they’ll hire someone to execute this for them and assign this group of people to that executive.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb to 'rulemaking' instead.
    - notch656c 4y ago
      Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I promise you will not find it. They are basically making law.

tristor 4y ago

What is good law and what is bad law? This is subjective, and likely shifts with the context of the surrounding society. Law is not morality, even though it may derive from social mores. For this reason, process is crucially important to prevent tyranny.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Yes, it's subjective. The ones I like are good. The ones that help my allies are good. The ones that punish my enemies are good. Pretending that things are any other way is madness.
- notch656c 4y ago
  When the enforcers and courts are corrupted racketeers, even good laws are evil.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Unless they're corrupt in my favor!
    - notch656c 4y ago
      Lets be honest, the common American does not have the bargaining power to corrupt anyone powerful in their favor unless they move to the third world where their dollars go further and corruption is even more accessible.
      - ElevenLathe 4y ago
        This is the point of left IMO: to collectively develop the power to corrupt things in favor of workers. This was the point of Tammany Hall. Some Irish immigrant off the boat in 1890 was not a Democrat because he believed in liberalism, but because his ward healer got his brother a job in the sanitation department. When organized labor is strong, they can get Democrats to pass pro-labor policies. The point of all political economy is to corrupt the system of money and power in your personal favor (including your friends, people with similar class interests, your family, etc.). Sometimes that means "anti-corruption" but it's simply a bad idea (pointless, stupid, naive) to point out that some official is corrupt if they are doing what you want them to instead of what someone else does.
        djur 4y ago
        I agree to an extent, but I also think this is kind of kicking the can down the road: how do workers collectively decide what is in their interest and what isn't? The historically successful socialist answers to this question have generally ranged from "something that looks a lot like liberal democracy" to "something that looks a lot like oligarchic despotism".
        ElevenLathe 4y ago
        Sure, that's the tough part of left politics. Capital has it easy, they can just pay people to do what they want. We have to get along and (more or less) agree.

idiotsecant 4y ago

So this sounds like a monarchy with extra steps.

lolinder 4y ago

My conservative dad said the exact same thing—almost word for word, just reversed—about liberals and process in 2009. I'm inclined to believe that there are groups of every political persuasion who believe the end justifies the means. EDIT: To clarify, I mean that my dad said that liberals will do anything to accomplish their goals while conservatives play nice. The same idea but in reverse. This is why I think that what is actually happening is that there's a small group of people in any movement that believe the end justifies the means, but it's hard to see the ones in your own movement because you agree with them.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
That's the left's problem IMO. The right knows that their game is to gain power and use it to achieve goals. The liberal left (which is most of it if we're honest) thinks they are just trying to gain enough power to make everyone play by the rules. The problem is that there is not enough power in the world to make your enemies bargain in good faith. Anyway this derailed from the OP which is about some new rules that might slightly tip the power in the employer-employee relationship in favor of employees. As an employee (leftists like to say "worker" but it means the same thing), this would be good for me.
- lolinder 4y ago
  No, I'm saying that my dad gave me this exact lecture in 2009 but in reverse—he said that the problem with the right is that they play nice while the liberals will do anything it takes to take power and accomplish their goals. Literally the exact same thing that you're saying but in reverse. I think what it actually is is that there are factions within each group who match your description and it is hard to see the faction in your own group because you agree with them.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I know it will sound like a slight to your dad, but in 2009 many conservative news outlets were pushing this narrative extremely heavily. And, I don't recall any actual evidence to back it up. It was more a weaponized accusation, much as marital infidelity was in the mid/late 90s. Worse, by all evidence since then, the record seems to be far more in the opposite direction. :(

sailfast 4y ago

Agencies do not make laws, full stop. Agencies are empowered by congress via laws to regulate industries. These regulations can be challenged in court as to whether they have overreached the scope of their regulation written in the original law, but they are not making laws. Agencies should not make laws (in the United States). Even good ones.

notch656c 4y ago
They do in all but name. One day a polymer80 frame in a box with a jig is a gun. Another day it is not. The only difference is a letter from an ATF agent. Lawmakers make laws intentionally vague to hide their nefarious motives, and then let the courts "determine" the agencies can "clarify." Then the lawmakers point their fingers at the evil agencies while secretly laughing it was all in their plan to offload blame for what they planned all along.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, they’d need, I don’t know, a group of experts who understand firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or remove items from a list. May be they’ll give this group a name at some point and then they’d realise that it’s really hard to manage all this while also having to make new laws. So they’ll hire someone to execute this for them and assign this group of people to that executive.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb to 'rulemaking' instead.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I promise you will not find it. They are basically making law.