4 ms·
The flip side is that if dismantling a federal agency doesn’t break anything, and doesn’t cause near universal outrage, perhaps the federal agency can/should be
by erulabs 2y ago
The flip side is that if dismantling a federal agency doesn’t break anything, and doesn’t cause near universal outrage, perhaps the federal agency can/should be dismantled at least temporarily?
Obviously a dangerous game to play, but it’s always safer to do nothing and sink slowly than to start ripping apart the hull at sea in order to fix the leaks. Both strategies have nonzero danger.
- cyberax 2y ago> The flip side is that if dismantling a federal agency doesn’t break anything It's like removing smoke detectors in a house. Or stopping home inspections entirely. It won't really cause problems. Heck, it will improve the economy in the short term.
- erulabs 2y agoHeh yeah to be clear I'm not saying the consequences won't be catastrophic. I'm saying that the gambit does have a success criteria: If we nuke half the federal government and there are no noticeable differences, then the premise that it was all waste is vindicated. A high risk gambit, to be sure.
- cutemonster 2y agoI think you would need to wait tens of years to notice the effects of the US becoming unimportant, and China and Putin taking its place, as possible effects of removing USAID
- erulabs 2y agoThat would be a noticeable difference!