3 ms·

With the current stagnated Congress session possibly but now whenever better legislation comes up any attempts to claim existing rules are "good enough" is obje

With the current stagnated Congress session possibly but now whenever better legislation comes up any attempts to claim existing rules are "good enough" is objectively wrong.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
"objectively wrong" no longer exists in politics, if it ever did.
- Guvante 3y ago
  The government isn't capable of doing the work it wants to do and so "good enough" doesn't apply. You can claim that the government was wrong in its pursuit of this case but that doesn't suddenly mean Congress has no work to do. At minimum codifying what makes it inappropriate for the government to take the action it attempted would be valuable. Congress is supposed to clarify if the Executive and Judicial do not agree on the meaning of their laws. Thus "objectively wrong" isn't about which side is right, it is that agreement doesn't exist. You could claim there was an unimportant misunderstanding after the first but after so many it is obvious there is a disconnect.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > The government isn't capable of doing the work it wants to do Debatable. Unless you're just referring to the executive branch the government does not have a single goal, and many of the leaders of the government want opposite things. > Thus "objectively wrong" isn't about which side is right, it is that agreement doesn't exist. Sure we can agree there. The issue is that there isn't even agreement on whether there's agreement. Kneecapping the government is the meta optimal move for minority parties, they gain nothing from trying to make the government more effective. So even if all the lawmakers secretly agree that congress has work to do, they'll never admit it.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      You keep saying "someone might want to do a bad thing" as if it is an argument. I never said they would do something, which is what you are arguing against. I said there isn't an excuse to not do anything based on the existing law covering what needs to be covered. Mostly I point it out because the "X government won't do anything" is uninteresting to discuss, it is basically an impossible to defeat argument. > Unless you're just referring to the executive branch the government In this context the branch of the government whose job it is to take this action is taking an action and so I felt specifying Executive was needlessly specific. It isn't like Congress is using this act to go after violators, that isn't their job.

With the current stagnated Congress session possibly but now whenever better legislation comes up any attempts to claim existing rules are "good enough" is objectively wrong.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

"objectively wrong" no longer exists in politics, if it ever did.

Guvante 3y ago
The government isn't capable of doing the work it wants to do and so "good enough" doesn't apply. You can claim that the government was wrong in its pursuit of this case but that doesn't suddenly mean Congress has no work to do. At minimum codifying what makes it inappropriate for the government to take the action it attempted would be valuable. Congress is supposed to clarify if the Executive and Judicial do not agree on the meaning of their laws. Thus "objectively wrong" isn't about which side is right, it is that agreement doesn't exist. You could claim there was an unimportant misunderstanding after the first but after so many it is obvious there is a disconnect.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > The government isn't capable of doing the work it wants to do Debatable. Unless you're just referring to the executive branch the government does not have a single goal, and many of the leaders of the government want opposite things. > Thus "objectively wrong" isn't about which side is right, it is that agreement doesn't exist. Sure we can agree there. The issue is that there isn't even agreement on whether there's agreement. Kneecapping the government is the meta optimal move for minority parties, they gain nothing from trying to make the government more effective. So even if all the lawmakers secretly agree that congress has work to do, they'll never admit it.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    You keep saying "someone might want to do a bad thing" as if it is an argument. I never said they would do something, which is what you are arguing against. I said there isn't an excuse to not do anything based on the existing law covering what needs to be covered. Mostly I point it out because the "X government won't do anything" is uninteresting to discuss, it is basically an impossible to defeat argument. > Unless you're just referring to the executive branch the government In this context the branch of the government whose job it is to take this action is taking an action and so I felt specifying Executive was needlessly specific. It isn't like Congress is using this act to go after violators, that isn't their job.