13 ms·

If it is harmful, why does lacking veteran status or other criteria make it less harmful and thus less infringing?

swatcoder 3y ago
There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business, even where it causes harm, but practical support for intervening in protection of certain groups seen as annointed, vulnerable, etc. There's no secret to it. If you're just not down with annoting vets with special treatment, that's fine and I think I'm with you, but your rehetorical question evaporates when you accept that politics is real and done in the open.
- throwanem 3y ago
  They agreed to curtail their liberty and risk life and limb on behalf of, and at the direction of, the state. Whatever you think of such a decision, it's absurd, especially for anyone who's ever taken compensation in equity, to imagine the state should not consider itself under some reciprocal obligation.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  > There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. I suppose you could make the case that modern Republicans are relatively focused on "non-interference", but that's certainly not new (Reagan) and it's certainly not a general American political trend. Really curious what you mean by this, because the way I'm reading this there is no basis in reality.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    No worries. I think you're just taking the wrong sense of current. Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions. This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long. You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations. Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.
    - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
      That clarified my misunderstanding, thanks!
  - Animats 3y ago
    > At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? 1930-1970.
    - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
      Which sector of our economy is subject to less regulation today than in the period between 1930-1970?
      - Animats 3y ago
        Airlines, for one. And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
        nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        You got me there.
      - the-dude 3y ago
        Banking?
        nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        Certainly not after 2008 and the Dodd-Frank Act.
      - 93po 3y ago
        Advertising, if you consider it as a ratio of impact versus regulation. Advertising has a thousand fold impact on people today but not a thousand fold increase in regulation.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    >At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated. So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks. The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
If there’s an effort to protect a specified group of people from a specific harm, why would you infer that the specific harm is considered less harmful to others outside the specified group? There are much more reasonable inferences available if you don’t reflexively view it through a competitive lens.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  indeed. I read it as "we're targeting specific scams aimed at veterans and others aimed at children" and my first thought was areas of the insurance industry selling "coverage" that doesn't cover. Those scams aren't targeting the general population to begin with.
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  Because otherwise the group wouldn't be specified?
  - brookst 3y ago
    There’s a conspiratorial way of thinking about it, which says “they could have protected everyone, but chose to only protect this group, therefore they must think it is ok for these harms to fall on others, therefore [insert innuendo or conspiracy]” And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse” Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.
    - BobbyJo 3y ago
      Id distinguish between the two by asking if the group is specified in policy or in incident documentation. The former would infer uneven application of policy, whereas the latter is what you're referencing.
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
Two4 3y ago
My opinion: the US strives to make their warrior class one of some sort of privilege, or at least appearing to have privilege. They have had various amounts of success in doing so. Thank you for your service, here's your veteran discount. Have you decided which college you want to spend your GI Bill at yet? Don't worry about scam institutions, the FTC will protect you.
- kylebenzle 3y ago
  Fun fact, the GI bill is a revenue generating scam. Meaning, it makes more money than it pays out. I didnt know until bootcamp you have to PAY to get the gi bill and then they make it as complicated as possible to use so most people never end up using it. Under capitalism nothing happens unless someone's making money.
  - herewulf 3y ago
    FUD. I don't recall paying anything into the (Montgomery) GI Bill. It wasn't hard to use. I got $50K of basically free money out. Granted I went to basic training over two decades ago. Maybe the Post 9/11 GI Bill is different? But I doubt it. What I've heard from fellow veterans is it's better in so many ways. Apparently I'm even eligible for a year of its use even though I depleted my original GI Bill (with kicker).
    - kylebenzle 3y ago
      [dead]
  - astura 3y ago
    It's not complicated to use. The most difficult part for most people is staying in school, which is made significantly easier by not having to pay for it.
  - parineum 3y ago
    > Under capitalism... Which part of capitalism causes the government to scam the state funded military. There doesn't appear to be any private ownership of capital involved at all.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Because the average citizen is not considered worth protecting in the United States. If you aren't of a protected class, you don't matter.
- ameister14 3y ago
  If you're really complaining that the guy in the wheelchair gets too much assistance in the form of a ramp to get into places or that children aren't treated the same as adults, you should take a hard look at yourself.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Somehow caring about every citizen is too hard? Nobody reasonable is against helping those who need it. It doesn't have to be at the cost of giving a shit about everyone else. But keep making up reasons to favor the status quo without activating any new synapses.
    - ameister14 3y ago
      Let's get into the "at the cost of giving a shit about everyone else" part - do you think that, prior to anti-discrimination laws intended to create an even playing field, everyone got some kind of benefit that they no longer get? If so, you are mistaken. In the United States, we do not have and have never had a system that cares about every citizen. We just don't. What we have are limits to cruelty and a general concept of fairness as a base starting point for life. ADA compliance especially does not give the disabled an advantage over others. It is an attempt to level things and an acknowledgment that assistance is necessary for some people to enter the workplace as otherwise they would not physically be able to do so. Most of the other protected classes are based on the Constitution - not including pregnant women and women that may become pregnant, as a sub-class, who are classically discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere and forced out of their jobs on a regular basis. So when someone, you in this instance, complains about "not being worth protecting" in comparison to a group that is routinely disadvantaged or innately vulnerable, it creates the appearance in people listening or reading their words that they are extremely naive and/or a cruel, mean person. This perception is something a person who is neither of those things should consider before speaking or posting about subjects like this one.
himinlomax 3y ago
One of the main issues is that veterans who are deployed may, through no fault of their own, not be in a position to challenge say a court decision or otherwise exercise their right within the normal time limit allowed. Even if they are not deployed abroad, they may be forced to move at a moment's notice when other people usually have the time to make preparations and thus may not get mail immediately.
vkou 3y ago
Because veterans, children, people with illnesses or disabilities, people with or without children, religious denominations and ethnic groups, people over the age of 40, people with non-standard gender or sexual orientation, and a couple of other categories that I'm sure I haven't mentioned tend to have a history of being discriminated against in various arenas, and having fewer resources to address that discrimination.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
  So, 150% of the population? Are people who were dealt 2 and 3 in a poker hand a protected class too? Back in the day we just used to say life isn't fair, play with what you have in the best way you could. And it worked.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    When was this back in the day? Prior to the 1972 amendment to the CRA? Because no, it did not work.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
      You probably have items in your house made by people working for $100 a month - which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. But this is not discrimination, this is different, right?
      - lawlessone 3y ago
        >which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. slaves aren't paid
        EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
        A skilled slave in Upper South could make $500/year, $20k in today's money.
      - 3y ago
barryrandall 3y ago
It doesn't, but opposing protections for children and veterans is widely perceived to be a losing political strategy.
jjk166 3y ago
They're not specifying who they want to protect from a general harmful business practice, they are saying who is targeted by a specific harmful business practice. So for example they're not saying protect only veterans from scam calls, they're saying protect everybody from scam calls that impersonate VA services in an attempt to scam veterans.
dragonwriter 3y ago
It doesn't. The adoption of compulsory process for investigation of certain potential violations doesn't make other violations less infringing. Its a procedural change dealing with investigations, not a change in the law governing the behavior the FTC regulates.

There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business, even where it causes harm, but practical support for intervening in protection of certain groups seen as annointed, vulnerable, etc. There's no secret to it. If you're just not down with annoting vets with special treatment, that's fine and I think I'm with you, but your rehetorical question evaporates when you accept that politics is real and done in the open.

throwanem 3y ago
They agreed to curtail their liberty and risk life and limb on behalf of, and at the direction of, the state. Whatever you think of such a decision, it's absurd, especially for anyone who's ever taken compensation in equity, to imagine the state should not consider itself under some reciprocal obligation.
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
> There's (ostensibly) a general current in American politics towards non-interference in business At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. I suppose you could make the case that modern Republicans are relatively focused on "non-interference", but that's certainly not new (Reagan) and it's certainly not a general American political trend. Really curious what you mean by this, because the way I'm reading this there is no basis in reality.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  No worries. I think you're just taking the wrong sense of current. Non-interference in business is the prevailing current in the US, at the federal level, since its founding. Interference needs to be constitutionally justified, and (historically) needs to not be better applied by more local jurisdictions. This is why the past shows has comparitively lax regulation for long. You're right that this is a more pressed issue lately and that we can see a local relative current towards regulation tempers that prevailing one, but in net its actually still relatively non-interfering compared to what you see in peer nations. Leaning on the metaphor: The prevailing Atlantic current mostly goes north up the US coast, but you can still find local currents in all directions amidst that prevailing flow.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    That clarified my misunderstanding, thanks!
- Animats 3y ago
  > At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? 1930-1970.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    Which sector of our economy is subject to less regulation today than in the period between 1930-1970?
    - Animats 3y ago
      Airlines, for one. And that's all the history homework I'm going to do.
      - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        You got me there.
    - the-dude 3y ago
      Banking?
      - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
        Certainly not after 2008 and the Dodd-Frank Act.
    - 93po 3y ago
      Advertising, if you consider it as a ratio of impact versus regulation. Advertising has a thousand fold impact on people today but not a thousand fold increase in regulation.
- ameister14 3y ago
  >At what point in time has our economy been more regulated than it is today? I can't even think of a particular industry that has trended towards less government involvement. In a specific and literal 'number of regulations, period' way, you're right. But in a more general sense involving the FTC, prior to 1978 the economy was significantly more regulated. So there may be more restrictions on the product to qualify as natural or organic, for example, but there are less restrictions on the ability of the company that makes the product to engage in non-competitive behavior. Banking is a good example - there are more restrictions and requirements for disclosure, but before the 90's, banks were not allowed to have branches in multiple states. Additionally, now you have a number of tech companies behaving like banks but acting in a significantly less regulated way that wasn't possible twenty-five years ago. From a 'whole economy' perspective, the required reserve balance reductions in the 90's resulted in less ability for the federal govt to control the economy without major shocks. The government has less control over the economy today than it has had in decades, and since the late 70's a failure of antitrust enforcement and changes in financial rules have resulted in market concentration in every major market to a degree that they have all become oligopolies.

eyelidlessness 3y ago

If there’s an effort to protect a specified group of people from a specific harm, why would you infer that the specific harm is considered less harmful to others outside the specified group? There are much more reasonable inferences available if you don’t reflexively view it through a competitive lens.

h2odragon 3y ago
indeed. I read it as "we're targeting specific scams aimed at veterans and others aimed at children" and my first thought was areas of the insurance industry selling "coverage" that doesn't cover. Those scams aren't targeting the general population to begin with.
BobbyJo 3y ago
Because otherwise the group wouldn't be specified?
- brookst 3y ago
  There’s a conspiratorial way of thinking about it, which says “they could have protected everyone, but chose to only protect this group, therefore they must think it is ok for these harms to fall on others, therefore [insert innuendo or conspiracy]” And there’s the pragmatic way of thinking about it, which says “these concerns were raised by advocates for this group based on past experiences where this group saw abuse, and the conversation was never elevated beyond protecting this previously-victimized group from future abuse” Thats not to defend what is probably bureaucratic myopia, just to say the reasons are more likely banal than strategic.
  - BobbyJo 3y ago
    Id distinguish between the two by asking if the group is specified in policy or in incident documentation. The former would infer uneven application of policy, whereas the latter is what you're referencing.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago

Two4 3y ago

My opinion: the US strives to make their warrior class one of some sort of privilege, or at least appearing to have privilege. They have had various amounts of success in doing so. Thank you for your service, here's your veteran discount. Have you decided which college you want to spend your GI Bill at yet? Don't worry about scam institutions, the FTC will protect you.

kylebenzle 3y ago
Fun fact, the GI bill is a revenue generating scam. Meaning, it makes more money than it pays out. I didnt know until bootcamp you have to PAY to get the gi bill and then they make it as complicated as possible to use so most people never end up using it. Under capitalism nothing happens unless someone's making money.
- herewulf 3y ago
  FUD. I don't recall paying anything into the (Montgomery) GI Bill. It wasn't hard to use. I got $50K of basically free money out. Granted I went to basic training over two decades ago. Maybe the Post 9/11 GI Bill is different? But I doubt it. What I've heard from fellow veterans is it's better in so many ways. Apparently I'm even eligible for a year of its use even though I depleted my original GI Bill (with kicker).
  - kylebenzle 3y ago
    [dead]
- astura 3y ago
  It's not complicated to use. The most difficult part for most people is staying in school, which is made significantly easier by not having to pay for it.
- parineum 3y ago
  > Under capitalism... Which part of capitalism causes the government to scam the state funded military. There doesn't appear to be any private ownership of capital involved at all.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Because the average citizen is not considered worth protecting in the United States. If you aren't of a protected class, you don't matter.

ameister14 3y ago
If you're really complaining that the guy in the wheelchair gets too much assistance in the form of a ramp to get into places or that children aren't treated the same as adults, you should take a hard look at yourself.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Somehow caring about every citizen is too hard? Nobody reasonable is against helping those who need it. It doesn't have to be at the cost of giving a shit about everyone else. But keep making up reasons to favor the status quo without activating any new synapses.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    Let's get into the "at the cost of giving a shit about everyone else" part - do you think that, prior to anti-discrimination laws intended to create an even playing field, everyone got some kind of benefit that they no longer get? If so, you are mistaken. In the United States, we do not have and have never had a system that cares about every citizen. We just don't. What we have are limits to cruelty and a general concept of fairness as a base starting point for life. ADA compliance especially does not give the disabled an advantage over others. It is an attempt to level things and an acknowledgment that assistance is necessary for some people to enter the workplace as otherwise they would not physically be able to do so. Most of the other protected classes are based on the Constitution - not including pregnant women and women that may become pregnant, as a sub-class, who are classically discriminated against in the workplace and elsewhere and forced out of their jobs on a regular basis. So when someone, you in this instance, complains about "not being worth protecting" in comparison to a group that is routinely disadvantaged or innately vulnerable, it creates the appearance in people listening or reading their words that they are extremely naive and/or a cruel, mean person. This perception is something a person who is neither of those things should consider before speaking or posting about subjects like this one.

himinlomax 3y ago

One of the main issues is that veterans who are deployed may, through no fault of their own, not be in a position to challenge say a court decision or otherwise exercise their right within the normal time limit allowed. Even if they are not deployed abroad, they may be forced to move at a moment's notice when other people usually have the time to make preparations and thus may not get mail immediately.

vkou 3y ago

Because veterans, children, people with illnesses or disabilities, people with or without children, religious denominations and ethnic groups, people over the age of 40, people with non-standard gender or sexual orientation, and a couple of other categories that I'm sure I haven't mentioned tend to have a history of being discriminated against in various arenas, and having fewer resources to address that discrimination.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
So, 150% of the population? Are people who were dealt 2 and 3 in a poker hand a protected class too? Back in the day we just used to say life isn't fair, play with what you have in the best way you could. And it worked.
- ameister14 3y ago
  When was this back in the day? Prior to the 1972 amendment to the CRA? Because no, it did not work.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
    You probably have items in your house made by people working for $100 a month - which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. But this is not discrimination, this is different, right?
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      >which is less than what slaves in mid 19th century's America earned. slaves aren't paid
      - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
        A skilled slave in Upper South could make $500/year, $20k in today's money.
    - 3y ago

barryrandall 3y ago

It doesn't, but opposing protections for children and veterans is widely perceived to be a losing political strategy.

jjk166 3y ago

They're not specifying who they want to protect from a general harmful business practice, they are saying who is targeted by a specific harmful business practice. So for example they're not saying protect only veterans from scam calls, they're saying protect everybody from scam calls that impersonate VA services in an attempt to scam veterans.

dragonwriter 3y ago

It doesn't. The adoption of compulsory process for investigation of certain potential violations doesn't make other violations less infringing. Its a procedural change dealing with investigations, not a change in the law governing the behavior the FTC regulates.