3 ms·

The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their vote

The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it. In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat. I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way. It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.

dangus 2y ago
> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
- mgh95 2y ago
  > The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
  - dangus 2y ago
    Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading. Operation Choke Point was an example of a failure but it’s surrounded many successes. You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg). The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.
    - mgh95 2y ago
      > Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading. But writing the regulations of a "system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading" are subject to a far more insidious "revolving door" (see OpenSecrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door) which also lists (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-agencies https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-agencies) the agencies lobbied and lobbyists. The big difference? It's quite literally not considered lobbying by law since administrative agencies aren't legislators (see this article: https://afj.org/resource/administrative-advocacy/)-- https://afj.org/resource/administrative-advocacy/)-- even whatever protections you believe are insufficient don't apply. > You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg). What enforcement efforts do you believe help you? Specifics are helpful. > The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president. So first: the FTC under Lina Khan has not been performing well, and notably lost their suits. Second, it's the DOJ suing Ticketmaster, and the DOJ is actually won their Google suit, and seems to be poised to win against Ticketmaster and RealPage, which I'm rooting for. And to address your points regarding the judicial branch: this is why laws are so important. People tend to treat elections as red vs blue, but the reality is that depending upon administrative agencies to legislate a contributing factor to what allows such tribalism to exist at all: a perception that progress on "issues", however minor, is permanent outside the bounds of congress can be made. To change the laws of the country, it must come from the seat of power: congress.
Terr_ 2y ago
> if Trump gets re-elected [...] the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office. Whuh? I don't even—would the quarters in your pocket happen to depict George Washington with a pointed goatee? On mine he's clean-shaven, from a timeline where "the left" has been the side consistently arguing for some very important limits on executive power, regardless of whether "their" candidate entered the office later, such as: * Remember all those years of "Unitary Executive Theory" under the Bush administration, and how it was opposed and kept getting opposed? * Everything about the Constitution-free-zone at Guantanamo, both its formation and failed executive attempts to dissolve it? * The thing about the Emoluments clause, and whether Presidents can solicit and accept bribes? * The thing about whether Presidents can self-pardon? * The Supreme Court case about whether Presidents have blanket immunity in office which would allow them to order the assassination of their rivals? Those should ring a tintinnabulation of bells, even before other less-legalistic notes, such as consistent belief that "President For Life" and praising foreign dictators for having dictatorial power are taboo.

dangus 2y ago

> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.

mgh95 2y ago
> The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
- dangus 2y ago
  Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading. Operation Choke Point was an example of a failure but it’s surrounded many successes. You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg). The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president.
  - mgh95 2y ago
    > Certainly it’s not a system without flaws, but I think it beats congress in specific situations. Congress is where corporations literally write the regulations in a system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading. But writing the regulations of a "system of unlimited legal bribery and insider trading" are subject to a far more insidious "revolving door" (see OpenSecrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door) which also lists (https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-agencies https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-agencies) the agencies lobbied and lobbyists. The big difference? It's quite literally not considered lobbying by law since administrative agencies aren't legislators (see this article: https://afj.org/resource/administrative-advocacy/)-- https://afj.org/resource/administrative-advocacy/)-- even whatever protections you believe are insufficient don't apply. > You’re a business owner so you have a certain perspective. My perspective as a consumer is that consumer protection agencies in the administrative state are the only entities that actually seem to make tangible enforcement efforts to protect me from people like you (or at least, much more powerful people like you - people like Mark Zuckerberg). What enforcement efforts do you believe help you? Specifics are helpful. > The FTC is the one that sues businesses like Ticketmaster for antitrust violations. The FBI is the one that catches my politicians breaking corruption laws. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is the one that took away my right to reproductive healthcare and expanded the criminal immunity rights of the president. So first: the FTC under Lina Khan has not been performing well, and notably lost their suits. Second, it's the DOJ suing Ticketmaster, and the DOJ is actually won their Google suit, and seems to be poised to win against Ticketmaster and RealPage, which I'm rooting for. And to address your points regarding the judicial branch: this is why laws are so important. People tend to treat elections as red vs blue, but the reality is that depending upon administrative agencies to legislate a contributing factor to what allows such tribalism to exist at all: a perception that progress on "issues", however minor, is permanent outside the bounds of congress can be made. To change the laws of the country, it must come from the seat of power: congress.

Terr_ 2y ago

> if Trump gets re-elected [...] the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office. Whuh? I don't even—would the quarters in your pocket happen to depict George Washington with a pointed goatee? On mine he's clean-shaven, from a timeline where "the left" has been the side consistently arguing for some very important limits on executive power, regardless of whether "their" candidate entered the office later, such as: * Remember all those years of "Unitary Executive Theory" under the Bush administration, and how it was opposed and kept getting opposed? * Everything about the Constitution-free-zone at Guantanamo, both its formation and failed executive attempts to dissolve it? * The thing about the Emoluments clause, and whether Presidents can solicit and accept bribes? * The thing about whether Presidents can self-pardon? * The Supreme Court case about whether Presidents have blanket immunity in office which would allow them to order the assassination of their rivals? Those should ring a tintinnabulation of bells, even before other less-legalistic notes, such as consistent belief that "President For Life" and praising foreign dictators for having dictatorial power are taboo.