4 ms·

- "To Address the National Emergency" A fast-moving emergency that can't be fixed by normal constitutional lawmaking processes, and must resort, exceptionally,

- "To Address the National Emergency" A fast-moving emergency that can't be fixed by normal constitutional lawmaking processes, and must resort, exceptionally, to executive-branch emergency decrees—for expedience. Nevermind the executive order it's drawing authority from was written three years ago. It was a fast-moving emergency then, too, I suppose. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01714/taking-additional-steps-to-address-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-significant-malicious https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01... ("Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency [sic] With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities" (2021))

sschueller 3y ago
So national security trumps democracy and freedom? What do you have left to protect when you give it all up? Might as well just elect a king and be done with it.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Don't worry--we seem to be actively working on this one, too.
- unboxingelf 3y ago
  Why elect a king when you already have a private group of bankers running the show
  - robocat 3y ago
    Systems run the show, not people. "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?": I believe that nobody is running the show. The systems we have created are more complex than we understand. I think a few people individually understand a few aspects of the different systems (we are not at the complete mercy to these systems). I also believe that we have a psycological need to know our social heirachies therefore we create stories about who we think is in control. That need creates conspiracy theories! That need creates narratives that certain people are running the world (but when you look closy at those people they are not running things - they don't understand how everything works even though they put much effort into trying to).
    - greenavocado 3y ago
      Banking is the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the financing and nothing gets done.
      - plasticchris 3y ago
        A point very eloquently made by Rick and Morty
      - robocat 3y ago
        People's desires are the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the people and nothing gets done. Or were atoms the foundation? Or thinking? Or maths? Or law? Or take away black holes and nothing gets done? Ranking interdependent systems is nonsense. Reductionism and false arguments don't help much either.
        greenavocado 3y ago
        You can make people do just about anything for money. Nothing else even comes close except ideology in a distant second place.
        robocat 3y ago
        Are you trying to argue that money is more important than banking? But that banking was the most important thing? Your logic elludes me. Or maybe you have a manipulative world view? What is more important - money or power? If you have power do you need money? Is power equivalent to money? "Money" is a means of exchange, and in some contexts it is a status signal. Money is a measure, not an ends in itself. People want the money to do something with: the something is faaaar more important than money. Find me a person with money, and I will easily find ten things they would prefer. Anecdotally: My friends don't value money above other things. Other friends could easily take nearly all my money if they chose to (I put myself into very submissive situations). I don't work because I don't need more money. Perhaps I live in a different world than you. The people I know all have complex desires, and few of my friends are concentrating on making money (and the smartest friends I know don't make money their central goal). I do have a couple of friends who try to make money and they seem to do it quite well without too much difficulty. Have you tried to offer money to people? If it is so critical then people would take it. My experience is that a few do but many don't. I've offered large amounts to acquaintances that haven't taken it (perhaps with or without hooks). (Slight edits for clarity).
- smsm42 3y ago
  And lose the profits on electoral show every 2 years? Do you know how much money can one make on an election? That's be silly to give up all that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- oaiey 3y ago
  You elect a executive branch to protect you. Sometimes that includes executive orders. And if these survive the check and balances, maybe it is for the greater good. If you do not want that, the country has to work on a functional Parlament and switch away from a presidential system.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - _DeadFred_ 3y ago
    This level of lack of understanding the basics of our system of government is why we used to have civics classes. If someone is using infomercial level logic/details/understanding to get you riled up, step one is to step back and get a better understanding, not to grab a pitchfork and get bitter. An post highlighting that the government is soliciting comments shows we don't actually have a king that can do whatever they want. You personally can comment on this proposal, and if you have a compelling argument, can stop it or in the future force your comment to be addressed. Remember the standard is that the Federal government's actions can not be arbitrary and capricious.
    - oaiey 3y ago
      I am not a US resident. I take here a pragmatic perspective. Laws, the level of bureaucracy etc is a choice we do in our societies. > Remember the standard is that the Federal government's actions can not be arbitrary and capricious. That assumes that everything is regulated by law (unrealistic) and that you have a working parlament (currently not the case in the US). Imagine Russia is invading Canada. Would you prefer a US president with the power of declaring war or the parlament starting to debate over it. A war has 100x more consequence than this KYC thingy here.
- anjel 3y ago
  Its long been this way. Even in the 1950s the were fed justices commenting that if a nuclear bomb were to be stolen, its retrieval would be a reasonable predicate justifying suspension of the bill of rights until the warhead's retrieval.
  - plasticchris 3y ago
    Ironically enough, we’d already lost one by then: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing-six-nuclear-weapons-180032 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing...
- greenavocado 3y ago
  Freedom has been on a steady decline since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 when established banking dynasties seized control over the currency of the country. The symbolic destruction of the constitution occurred on 9/11/2001 when the modern police state went into full force.
  - tadfisher 3y ago
    We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings. How the Fed turned into the ancap Boogeyman is the real destructive force in our society.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      > We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings The Great Depression, the savings and loan crisis, and the GFC all happened after the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Sure, I guess you could claim that all of those would have been worse without the Fed, but reasonable minds can differ on that without being an "ancap".
      - tadfisher 3y ago
        Your examples would be better if they weren't all securities bubbles.
    - greenavocado 3y ago
      "We" didn't establish anything. An elite few met at The Meeting at Jekyll Island to discuss the matter and the public had zero say in it. Just like we continue to have no say in government today. Bills are rammed through congress and the president's desk and they just rubber stamp everything put out by the deep state or they risk getting CP'd by the intelligence apparatus. The main group of opposition to the Fed was 9/11'd in the sinking of the "unsinkable" Titanic because internal defenses against sinking were deliberately sabotaged just like the power went out for "maintenance" in the Twin Towers for 24 hours before 9/11 when anybody was allowed in to go anywhere inside whereas the building security was tightly controlled since the day it opened without fail up to that point.
- willmadden 3y ago
  There's an argument to be made that we would be far better off with a benevolent monarchy than whatever this is.
  - krapp 3y ago
    There is no such thing as a benevolent monarchy, if that monarchy exists as anything more than a figurehead. No position of absolute and uncheckable power, least of all derived from a claim of divine right or racial purity, can be considered benevolent. Yes, an argument can be made. And such an argument can and should be quickly discarded with a glance at the last thousand years or so of human history. We tried it. Rolling the dice that the next king or tsar or emperor to own the people will at least treat them kindly. And we decided that being owned by a government in which we have no franchise is a bad idea. A very bad idea.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    If we ever could find a Superman who would agree to be a benevolent monarch, sure. The only problem is that Superman is actually a work of fiction (and even a fictional one would refuse the role) and real people have, let's say, not so stellar record of being benevolent. It's one of those nice ideal arguments that works very well as long as you are allowed to assume magical entities that can't actually exist in the real world.
  - TY812 3y ago
    Dynastic monarchies have one advantage over liberal democracies: If you want your bloodline to stay in power, you are incentivised to leave the country off better than you inherited it - if you act out too much, there's a good chance your offspring will follow you not on the throne, but on the guillotine. This immediately makes 'fuck you, I got mine' style politics unfeasable.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    In a monarchy at least there's a chance of getting a good ruler by the genetic lottery. In a political system almost inevitably the people who get to the top are the best liars and manipulators, not good people.
greyface- 3y ago
Fun fact: we've got active national emergencies dating back to 1979! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...
- highcountess 3y ago
  Geez … those are some long emerging occurrences.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  They're mostly sanctions regimes though it looks like which the Executive can largely implement on it's own (under current constitutional interpretations). It probably included other things that have since been ended and the sanctions are the only thing really left.
smsm42 3y ago
We're in a permanent emergency now. Which is no surprise - if a mere voluntary act of declaring emergency lets the government do what they otherwise can't - why not declare it over and over? Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... In the US we have 42 (!) ongoing national emergencies. The oldest dating back to 1979. I think most of US-based HN readers never lived in non-emergency US.
- sakjur 3y ago
  That’d be September 1978 – November 1979 and before then during the roaring twenties if I read this right. Maybe POTUS should declare an emergency to reduce the number of emergencies?
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Looks like that's exactly how they got a full non-emergency year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Special_Committee_on_the_Termination_of_the_National_Emergency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Special_Committe... Of course, it didn't last long - as soon as the focus moved on, emergencies started popping back up.
- oaiey 3y ago
  They are declared in an emergency (most of them are sanctions to freeze money and freedoms of foreigners). That does not mean you live in an emergency. That they are still active means only that the Parlament was too lazy or too blocked to put them in a law.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Legally, it means exactly that - the government wasn't allowed to do X, but they said the magic word "emergency", and now they are allowed to do X as much as they want, until they decide they are done. Of course, this means they were always allowed to do X, it's just that the public will eat it more easily if instead of saying "the government can take your freedoms anytime" they'd say "the government can't take you freedom ever - except if there's a real dangerous emergency". Functionally, those are exactly the same, but the latter sounds much more "reasonable".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sschueller 3y ago

So national security trumps democracy and freedom? What do you have left to protect when you give it all up? Might as well just elect a king and be done with it.

ryandrake 3y ago
Don't worry--we seem to be actively working on this one, too.
unboxingelf 3y ago
Why elect a king when you already have a private group of bankers running the show
- robocat 3y ago
  Systems run the show, not people. "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?": I believe that nobody is running the show. The systems we have created are more complex than we understand. I think a few people individually understand a few aspects of the different systems (we are not at the complete mercy to these systems). I also believe that we have a psycological need to know our social heirachies therefore we create stories about who we think is in control. That need creates conspiracy theories! That need creates narratives that certain people are running the world (but when you look closy at those people they are not running things - they don't understand how everything works even though they put much effort into trying to).
  - greenavocado 3y ago
    Banking is the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the financing and nothing gets done.
    - plasticchris 3y ago
      A point very eloquently made by Rick and Morty
    - robocat 3y ago
      People's desires are the foundation of all so-called systems. Take away the people and nothing gets done. Or were atoms the foundation? Or thinking? Or maths? Or law? Or take away black holes and nothing gets done? Ranking interdependent systems is nonsense. Reductionism and false arguments don't help much either.
      - greenavocado 3y ago
        You can make people do just about anything for money. Nothing else even comes close except ideology in a distant second place.
        robocat 3y ago
        Are you trying to argue that money is more important than banking? But that banking was the most important thing? Your logic elludes me. Or maybe you have a manipulative world view? What is more important - money or power? If you have power do you need money? Is power equivalent to money? "Money" is a means of exchange, and in some contexts it is a status signal. Money is a measure, not an ends in itself. People want the money to do something with: the something is faaaar more important than money. Find me a person with money, and I will easily find ten things they would prefer. Anecdotally: My friends don't value money above other things. Other friends could easily take nearly all my money if they chose to (I put myself into very submissive situations). I don't work because I don't need more money. Perhaps I live in a different world than you. The people I know all have complex desires, and few of my friends are concentrating on making money (and the smartest friends I know don't make money their central goal). I do have a couple of friends who try to make money and they seem to do it quite well without too much difficulty. Have you tried to offer money to people? If it is so critical then people would take it. My experience is that a few do but many don't. I've offered large amounts to acquaintances that haven't taken it (perhaps with or without hooks). (Slight edits for clarity).
smsm42 3y ago
And lose the profits on electoral show every 2 years? Do you know how much money can one make on an election? That's be silly to give up all that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oaiey 3y ago
You elect a executive branch to protect you. Sometimes that includes executive orders. And if these survive the check and balances, maybe it is for the greater good. If you do not want that, the country has to work on a functional Parlament and switch away from a presidential system.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 3y ago
  This level of lack of understanding the basics of our system of government is why we used to have civics classes. If someone is using infomercial level logic/details/understanding to get you riled up, step one is to step back and get a better understanding, not to grab a pitchfork and get bitter. An post highlighting that the government is soliciting comments shows we don't actually have a king that can do whatever they want. You personally can comment on this proposal, and if you have a compelling argument, can stop it or in the future force your comment to be addressed. Remember the standard is that the Federal government's actions can not be arbitrary and capricious.
  - oaiey 3y ago
    I am not a US resident. I take here a pragmatic perspective. Laws, the level of bureaucracy etc is a choice we do in our societies. > Remember the standard is that the Federal government's actions can not be arbitrary and capricious. That assumes that everything is regulated by law (unrealistic) and that you have a working parlament (currently not the case in the US). Imagine Russia is invading Canada. Would you prefer a US president with the power of declaring war or the parlament starting to debate over it. A war has 100x more consequence than this KYC thingy here.
anjel 3y ago
Its long been this way. Even in the 1950s the were fed justices commenting that if a nuclear bomb were to be stolen, its retrieval would be a reasonable predicate justifying suspension of the bill of rights until the warhead's retrieval.
- plasticchris 3y ago
  Ironically enough, we’d already lost one by then: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing-six-nuclear-weapons-180032 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing...
greenavocado 3y ago
Freedom has been on a steady decline since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 when established banking dynasties seized control over the currency of the country. The symbolic destruction of the constitution occurred on 9/11/2001 when the modern police state went into full force.
- tadfisher 3y ago
  We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings. How the Fed turned into the ancap Boogeyman is the real destructive force in our society.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings The Great Depression, the savings and loan crisis, and the GFC all happened after the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Sure, I guess you could claim that all of those would have been worse without the Fed, but reasonable minds can differ on that without being an "ancap".
    - tadfisher 3y ago
      Your examples would be better if they weren't all securities bubbles.
  - greenavocado 3y ago
    "We" didn't establish anything. An elite few met at The Meeting at Jekyll Island to discuss the matter and the public had zero say in it. Just like we continue to have no say in government today. Bills are rammed through congress and the president's desk and they just rubber stamp everything put out by the deep state or they risk getting CP'd by the intelligence apparatus. The main group of opposition to the Fed was 9/11'd in the sinking of the "unsinkable" Titanic because internal defenses against sinking were deliberately sabotaged just like the power went out for "maintenance" in the Twin Towers for 24 hours before 9/11 when anybody was allowed in to go anywhere inside whereas the building security was tightly controlled since the day it opened without fail up to that point.
willmadden 3y ago
There's an argument to be made that we would be far better off with a benevolent monarchy than whatever this is.
- krapp 3y ago
  There is no such thing as a benevolent monarchy, if that monarchy exists as anything more than a figurehead. No position of absolute and uncheckable power, least of all derived from a claim of divine right or racial purity, can be considered benevolent. Yes, an argument can be made. And such an argument can and should be quickly discarded with a glance at the last thousand years or so of human history. We tried it. Rolling the dice that the next king or tsar or emperor to own the people will at least treat them kindly. And we decided that being owned by a government in which we have no franchise is a bad idea. A very bad idea.
- smsm42 3y ago
  If we ever could find a Superman who would agree to be a benevolent monarch, sure. The only problem is that Superman is actually a work of fiction (and even a fictional one would refuse the role) and real people have, let's say, not so stellar record of being benevolent. It's one of those nice ideal arguments that works very well as long as you are allowed to assume magical entities that can't actually exist in the real world.
- TY812 3y ago
  Dynastic monarchies have one advantage over liberal democracies: If you want your bloodline to stay in power, you are incentivised to leave the country off better than you inherited it - if you act out too much, there's a good chance your offspring will follow you not on the throne, but on the guillotine. This immediately makes 'fuck you, I got mine' style politics unfeasable.
- logicchains 3y ago
  In a monarchy at least there's a chance of getting a good ruler by the genetic lottery. In a political system almost inevitably the people who get to the top are the best liars and manipulators, not good people.

greyface- 3y ago

Fun fact: we've got active national emergencies dating back to 1979! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i...

highcountess 3y ago
Geez … those are some long emerging occurrences.
rtkwe 3y ago
They're mostly sanctions regimes though it looks like which the Executive can largely implement on it's own (under current constitutional interpretations). It probably included other things that have since been ended and the sanctions are the only thing really left.

smsm42 3y ago

We're in a permanent emergency now. Which is no surprise - if a mere voluntary act of declaring emergency lets the government do what they otherwise can't - why not declare it over and over? Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_i... In the US we have 42 (!) ongoing national emergencies. The oldest dating back to 1979. I think most of US-based HN readers never lived in non-emergency US.

sakjur 3y ago
That’d be September 1978 – November 1979 and before then during the roaring twenties if I read this right. Maybe POTUS should declare an emergency to reduce the number of emergencies?
- smsm42 3y ago
  Looks like that's exactly how they got a full non-emergency year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Special_Committee_on_the_Termination_of_the_National_Emergency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_the_Special_Committe... Of course, it didn't last long - as soon as the focus moved on, emergencies started popping back up.
oaiey 3y ago
They are declared in an emergency (most of them are sanctions to freeze money and freedoms of foreigners). That does not mean you live in an emergency. That they are still active means only that the Parlament was too lazy or too blocked to put them in a law.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Legally, it means exactly that - the government wasn't allowed to do X, but they said the magic word "emergency", and now they are allowed to do X as much as they want, until they decide they are done. Of course, this means they were always allowed to do X, it's just that the public will eat it more easily if instead of saying "the government can take your freedoms anytime" they'd say "the government can't take you freedom ever - except if there's a real dangerous emergency". Functionally, those are exactly the same, but the latter sounds much more "reasonable".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]