16 ms·

If anything this whole DOGE scenario has illuminated is how confused and overconfident many in this country are. We are stumbling fools without systems and rule

If anything this whole DOGE scenario has illuminated is how confused and overconfident many in this country are. We are stumbling fools without systems and rules (organizations, institutions, laws, regulations, ...) to rely on. I wonder how much behavior like this stems from weak regulation in the US to begin with. It seems like it would reinforce the rise of agents that assume they can ask for forgiveness after acting wantonly.

baq 2y ago
Uppers have this effect on people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  You think Musk is on uppers all the time? This would indeed explain a bunch of things related to his behavior
  - Aromasin 2y ago
    Use your own judgement, but he looked like he was rolling during the inauguration... https://x.com/Dreamshockcom/status/1881383073495048599 https://x.com/Dreamshockcom/status/1881383073495048599 Some might say he was just stretching his neck, but personally I love an electronic music gigs, and I've seen that behaviour enough times before. He's not quiet about his ketamine usage either (not an upper per-se, but close to an alcohol-like hallucinogenic from my experience).
    - scarab92 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus would be more of a call out than neck stretching, and both are pointless supposition.
      - bergeyboy 2y ago
        Hey I think I might have this. Thanks!
    - yadaeno 2y ago
      The way he rolls his eyes and facial expression suggests MDMA or possibly adderall.
- rzz3 2y ago
  “Uppers”? I thought the leading theories were MDMA and Ketamine (and recovering from neck surgery), neither of which are best-described by the word “uppers”, nor is that behavior an effect that “uppers” generally have (e.g. cocaine, (meth)amphetamines).
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    The MA in MDMA is methamphetamine. That said, it's also an empathogen that promotes prosocial behavior, which isn't the word I'd use to describe the behavior happening.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      I don’t think it has empathy-promoting properties when abused heavily and chronically. As I recall, the empathy-promotion is highly dose-dependent to begin with, and can even reverse due to extended misuse.
      - bloomingkales 2y ago
        I think the more important point is that most people were not born yesterday. Some very rich people are either mentally ill, or on drugs, or both. Or enough drug abuse (off camera) caused long term ego/brain changes. You can barely tell a poor person to change their life, imagine the discussion with a multi billionaire. There's no discussion.
    - rzz3 2y ago
      That’s not how chemicals work. It’s not “methylenedioxy” mixed with methamphetamine, it’s an entirely distinct molecule. MDMA is an enpathogen, an aspect which contradicts OP’s key point.
somewhereoutth 2y ago
"unmoored" is the word. Not or no longer attached to reality.
- bloomingeek 2y ago
  Sadly true, the wonder is that the idiot has been showing his hand since at least 2015 and he still was been given another term!?! My guess, the first two years will be a type of cringe humor/horror. Mid-terms will be a political slaughter. Never, ever underestimate the ignorance and naivety of the American voter, especially my generation, the boomers.
  - _dark_matter_ 2y ago
    How are you so sure how the midterms will shake out? We seen to be seeing a withering of dissent.
    - b_davis_ 2y ago
      they are holding their powder. 18 months until it is time to get serious about electing the next congress.
      - bloomingeek 2y ago
        I believe this to be true. Making waves now is risky because current administration will take revenge on your state, whether blue or red. Sad, isn't it?
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      Predicting politics is similar to gambling, it's not a science and their are too many variables. However, in this case there are some indicators worth looking at. IF congress severely cuts or makes limiting changes to Medicaid, voters from both parties who live near or at the poverty level will shout loud and clear. They will threaten their representatives with their votes. (they've already started, BTW.) Hospitals will be in a bind also, after all, Medicaid money is better then no money. If you're not horrified by the access musk has had so far to the Treasury Department, remember how info is sold on the internet. And last, but not least, Project 2025. Personal morality cannot be legislated. We want the government out of our backyard, bedroom and bank account, P 2025 wants a part of all, the question is will the American voter willingly be led down the path of limited autonomy. (my generation, boomer, used to be all about personal freedom, now we seem to believe in freedom only for ourselves, that is, if we are white and male.)
mschuster91 2y ago
> We are stumbling fools without systems and rules (organizations, institutions, laws, regulations, ...) to rely on. The wide masses yes - the 1% who is looking to profit immensely from the upcoming chaos not. DOGE is not about trimming government costs, it is about allowing the large companies to rip off the masses without repercussions (e.g. the planned demise of CFPB or OSHA/DoL) and it is about preparing the transfer of what used to be government-provided services at cost or subsidised to privatised for profit enterprises where the 1% profit (e.g. the dismantling of public schools). The end game is obvious, neofeudalism: everything that the 99% do shall generate profit for the 1%. We shall own nothing and rent/pay for everything. It begins with five to six figures medical bills at birth and ends with our funeral costs.
- chinathrow 2y ago
  The rich are endangering their riches in this experiment. The pitch forks will have their field day eventually. 2014 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    That's the insiduous thing we're seeing - when you have to work two jobs just to make rent on a dilapidated shack for a slumlord you don't have time to protest, and when your healthcare insurance depends on having a job (because there aren't charity-run hospitals around any more) you can't afford the risk getting fired for going on a strike, much less actual "direct action". On top of that, mass media controls the narratives way too hard - just look how fast Luigi Mangione got out of the news.
    - afavour 2y ago
      > just look how fast Luigi Mangione got out of the news. What news would there be? He was arrested and locked up, his court case hasn’t started. Should we have “Luigi still in jail” headlines?
ty6853 2y ago
Feds consumed <5% GDP during most non-war time between civil war and WW1. During which time standard of living and economy rose about as much during the post WW2 period of massively growing government and regulation. It's hard to take these apocalyptic premonitions about federal government reduction seriously.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  I don't think appealing to the gilded age can be taken seriously. See for instance: https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919 https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919
  - joyeuse6701 2y ago
    For better or for worse, that GDP boom was enabled by the massive spending and outcome of the Civil War, much like WW2. To point to these moments and ignore the immediate massive historical events that preceded it seems like a serious oversight in the analysis.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      You chastise the comparison but then admit they're much alike, did you think that a complete accident. Obviously two different times are two different times but it's hilarious the hypocrisy you often see of regulatory proponents talking up post WW2 gains as the regulatory apparatus spun up -- but when you point out other post war periods with lower federal burdens suddenly the narrative changes to 'not like that!'
- bbor 2y ago
  …youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and continued urbanization. But that’s… those are some of our nations most shameful, inequal, racist years in its entire history. The federal government as it exists now was just getting started after we realized we needed it thanks to the civil war, and many local democratic systems were completely broken. More relevantly, we didn’t have cancer researchers, epidemiologists, the NSF, or, most relevantly, nuclear weapons. Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face, unless they’re young and don’t know anyone older than them, and/or advocates isolationism. Regardless, this exact story makes it clear that the goal isn’t cutting the size of the government at all — it’s politicizing the civil service, and bringing it under the exclusive control of a supreme executive. They’re not exactly ashamed of it!
gitfan86 2y ago
[flagged]
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  > If you got your information from economic facts comparing Europe to USA this comment it hilarious I don't understand what you mean. Can you please point me to resources to help inform me instead of pointing and laughing?
  - scarab92 2y ago
    Much of Europe is in a recession, or has stagnant economic growth at best. They've had left leaning governments for too long, and economic stagnation is the natural result of that. You can't regulate your way to prosperity.
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      > They've had left leaning governments for too long, and economic stagnation is the natural result of that. You can't regulate your way to prosperity. Left-leaning political ideology implies regulation? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism A more convincing argument for me would detail the regulatory frameworks that lead to economic stagnation, not bucketing a whole continent in an attempt to correlate a glut of regulation with economic stagnation.
      - DecoySalamander 2y ago
        If you consider ancap to be a left-leaning ideology you should reread "Classification" section on the page you've linked.
        someothherguyy 2y ago
        It sounds left-leaning? How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
throw0101d 2y ago
> We are stumbling fools without systems and rules (organizations, institutions, laws, regulations, ...) to rely on. There are no organization or institutions or anything else that matters: only people matter. If people don't bother to have integrity then "institutions" (or anything based around them) are irrelevant. "There are no institutions, only people." — https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1231219728619835395 https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1231219728619835395 (possibly quoting Papandreou) In the US context: > Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. * https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0101 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-010...
- nickdothutton 2y ago
  We are told endlessly in the UK that "institutions are strong". This is about as foolishly optimistic a statement as I can recall hearing, from ostensibly serious people. Institutions are not strong. Institutions are made of people. People are weak, corrupt, lazy, stupid, and endlessly self-serving. Institutions are weak.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > People are weak, corrupt, lazy, stupid, and endlessly self-serving. Institutions are weak This is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low-trust societies are filled with weak, corrupted, lazy and stupid leaders.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    The problem with MBA’s is that they don’t value what decent men and women bring to the table. I’d rather pay double for an honest mechanic. Asymmetric information requires a ton of resources to protect against, or you can just know the person you’re dealing with is honest.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> many in this country are It's exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of the Silicon Valley elite. Between the stupidity and kowtowing it has revealed a startling amount of groupthink and cowardice, even among people I once held as independent thinkers.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I highly recommend everyone read the Curtis Yarvin NYTimes interview [linked below] to see the full extent of the intellectual bankruptcy. This guy is apparently seen as some meaningful thinker by the Silicon Valley elite (Vance and Andreesen have quoted him), but in literally his 3rd sentence just straight up lies. Yarvin's claim: "[In] F.D.R.’s first inaugural address,... he essentially says, Hey, Congress, give me absolute power, or I’ll take it anyway" From FDR's speech: "I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency..." Operative phrase: "I shall ask the Congress" These people are, at best, dishonest and cowardly. Even more disappointing, it's increasingly clear the only indicator of actual intelligence is net worth. This is rather lossy signal, unfortunately. Interview: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
  - kernal 2y ago
    Why would any rational person read the rantings of a radical far left socialist on a site and newspaper known for spreading democrat propaganda? That’s like telling people to watch CNN and MSDNC to get their news.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Are you referring to Yarvin as a far left socialist? He's about as far from a socialist as you can get. Also: It's a literal interview lol. You get to read his own answers to (very light) skeptical questioning. You can see him completely elide (or forget, or not know?) that CEOs are accountable to boards and, ultimately, to shareholders. You get to see him dismiss his own child's fears about Trump's wall by first forgetting (or deceiving, again) that Trump did indeed start building a physical, literal wall, then assure his child that his life won't change as he attends a fancy private Mandarin immersion school in San Francisco. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty just cannot help but seep out of this supposedly serious thinker! Of course the real value of his philosophy is its conclusion that the ultrawealthy should rule the world. So the ahistoricism, dishonesty, and internal incoherence hardly matter to the Silicon Valley elite.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> stems from weak regulation in the US to begin with I don't know about that, but certainly it has exposed a significant weakness in the US democratic structure: it is based on the supposition that everyone will follow the rules (i.e., accepting the results of an election, following the laws passed by congress, etc.) A president who defies both conventions and laws is hard to stop. The only mechanism is impeachment, and that as we have seen is _extremely difficult_ to do -- in many cases that has been used frivolously by both parties, but even in the case where it should have been a slam dunk -- Trump's attempted coup -- the most GOP senators were too afraid of their own re-election chances because of Trump's ability to "rile up the masses" (look at Liz Cheney). A climate of fear is an essential part of authoritarianism because it paralyzes those who might be able to take action to ensure that the democratic principles are upheld. When you have an angry mob attack the capitol building and threaten to kill politicians, and they are pardoned by the person who incited them, that generates a lot of fear.
- nerdix 2y ago
  This is correct. I don't think it is possible to design a democratic system that is impervious to authoritarianism when a large enough percentage of the population is in favor of it. After the last election, it is clear that a slight majority of Americans are either in favor of outright authoritarianism or are at least not turned off by it. I wonder how much is this is "rational" due to Congress being broken as an institution. Hyper-partisanship and an unchecked filibuster means that Congress is stuck in permanent gridlock. The only way to get anything done is through executive power. But the system wasn't designed to work that way and so the checks on executive power can seem stifling to progress. It seems that many are willing to look the other way if they feel like its the only way to get what they want done. Concern only seems to come into play when its the other side wielding power. And this seems to be true across the aisle. Many on the left were frustrated with Biden's perceived timidity when it came to exercising executive power. And I feel like he was pressured into doing things that he wasn't fully comfortable doing unilaterally (especially regarding student loan forgiveness). Of course, the difference is that Biden spent 40 years in the Senate, understands the role of Congress in government, and had no intention of "ignoring the rules". Trump isn't limited by that type of thinking since he had no experience with, no great knowledge of, or respect for American government.
skissane 2y ago
I think a lot of this “DOGE scenario” couldn’t happen in most of Europe, or Canada, or Australia/New Zealand - due to the US having a presidential instead of parliamentary system of government. In a parliamentary system, if the Prime Minister wants to merge/abolish/restructure government agencies, it normally just happens - because, most of the time, the Prime Minister can be confident the legislature will vote for any necessary legislation, since the PM’s party/coalition will control the legislature. So, the whole argument that Trump is illegally shutting down government agencies, why would a PM shut something down illegally when they can do it legally? The only exception might be in a minority government scenario, when the PM might not have the votes to get the necessary legislation passed - but, in such a scenario, if they decide to bypass the legislature and shut it down anyway, the legislature likely wouldn’t let them Similarly, this whole “impoundment” thing - in most parliamentary systems, the executive is under no obligation to spend appropriated funds, and if they decide not to, the legislative majority will not have any problem with it - because, the executive and the legislative majority are basically the same thing. It is only because in the US (and maybe other countries with presidential systems, such as much of Latin America), the legislature gets upset by the executive deciding not to spend appropriated funds, and tries to make it illegal for them to do so. (Although we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say-don’t be surprised if the current conservative SCOTUS majority decides that the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is at least partially unconstitutional, or else renders it judicially unenforceable, e.g. using the political question doctrine.) Many political scientists argue that the presidential system is inferior to the parliamentary, and produces political instability, gridlock, strongman (caudillo) rule. For a long time, while much of Latin America suffered from many of those problems, the US escaped them - whether due to wealth, cultural protective factors, or just plain good luck. However, with the return of caudillo Trump (arguably in his second term acting even more like a caudillo than in his first) and now the “DOGE scenario”, maybe the US’s luck has finally run out, and its politics are at last turning Latin American.
cyanydeez 2y ago
To be fair, the regime running this playbook simply wants different rules and the people who should stand in their way have spent a decade claiming the existing status quo will stop them. So, it's really hard to point out that we want to revert to the status quo because the winner of the last election was apathy in first place.
lumost 2y ago
Ultimately the system of checks and balances was designed to slow down change. The variety of term limits and actors meant that it would take a significant concentration of resources for a protracted period of time to consolidate power. The fact that the richest man in the world, acting with at least a visual approval of the next 10-100 richest people in the world has only managed some minor chaos is a testament to how insulated from economic power the US government was (in the grand scheme of things). Real issues will emerge if such concentration of power is made perpetual.
- kamaal 2y ago
  >>Ultimately the system of checks and balances was designed to slow down change. I think a good part of the world still doesn't get it. Progress is mostly a outcome of stability, not change, even less rapid change. This whole concept might sound counter intuitive. But think about it seriously. Exponential growth, when you factor in small losses in between comes when you stick to one process(that generates small gains) for long. Not by making rapid changes to a process(in hopes of making one big gain) for a long time.

baq 2y ago

Uppers have this effect on people.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
onemoresoop 2y ago
You think Musk is on uppers all the time? This would indeed explain a bunch of things related to his behavior
- Aromasin 2y ago
  Use your own judgement, but he looked like he was rolling during the inauguration... https://x.com/Dreamshockcom/status/1881383073495048599 https://x.com/Dreamshockcom/status/1881383073495048599 Some might say he was just stretching his neck, but personally I love an electronic music gigs, and I've seen that behaviour enough times before. He's not quiet about his ketamine usage either (not an upper per-se, but close to an alcohol-like hallucinogenic from my experience).
  - scarab92 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nystagmus would be more of a call out than neck stretching, and both are pointless supposition.
    - bergeyboy 2y ago
      Hey I think I might have this. Thanks!
  - yadaeno 2y ago
    The way he rolls his eyes and facial expression suggests MDMA or possibly adderall.
rzz3 2y ago
“Uppers”? I thought the leading theories were MDMA and Ketamine (and recovering from neck surgery), neither of which are best-described by the word “uppers”, nor is that behavior an effect that “uppers” generally have (e.g. cocaine, (meth)amphetamines).
- Aloisius 2y ago
  The MA in MDMA is methamphetamine. That said, it's also an empathogen that promotes prosocial behavior, which isn't the word I'd use to describe the behavior happening.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I don’t think it has empathy-promoting properties when abused heavily and chronically. As I recall, the empathy-promotion is highly dose-dependent to begin with, and can even reverse due to extended misuse.
    - bloomingkales 2y ago
      I think the more important point is that most people were not born yesterday. Some very rich people are either mentally ill, or on drugs, or both. Or enough drug abuse (off camera) caused long term ego/brain changes. You can barely tell a poor person to change their life, imagine the discussion with a multi billionaire. There's no discussion.
  - rzz3 2y ago
    That’s not how chemicals work. It’s not “methylenedioxy” mixed with methamphetamine, it’s an entirely distinct molecule. MDMA is an enpathogen, an aspect which contradicts OP’s key point.

somewhereoutth 2y ago

"unmoored" is the word. Not or no longer attached to reality.

bloomingeek 2y ago
Sadly true, the wonder is that the idiot has been showing his hand since at least 2015 and he still was been given another term!?! My guess, the first two years will be a type of cringe humor/horror. Mid-terms will be a political slaughter. Never, ever underestimate the ignorance and naivety of the American voter, especially my generation, the boomers.
- _dark_matter_ 2y ago
  How are you so sure how the midterms will shake out? We seen to be seeing a withering of dissent.
  - b_davis_ 2y ago
    they are holding their powder. 18 months until it is time to get serious about electing the next congress.
    - bloomingeek 2y ago
      I believe this to be true. Making waves now is risky because current administration will take revenge on your state, whether blue or red. Sad, isn't it?
  - bloomingeek 2y ago
    Predicting politics is similar to gambling, it's not a science and their are too many variables. However, in this case there are some indicators worth looking at. IF congress severely cuts or makes limiting changes to Medicaid, voters from both parties who live near or at the poverty level will shout loud and clear. They will threaten their representatives with their votes. (they've already started, BTW.) Hospitals will be in a bind also, after all, Medicaid money is better then no money. If you're not horrified by the access musk has had so far to the Treasury Department, remember how info is sold on the internet. And last, but not least, Project 2025. Personal morality cannot be legislated. We want the government out of our backyard, bedroom and bank account, P 2025 wants a part of all, the question is will the American voter willingly be led down the path of limited autonomy. (my generation, boomer, used to be all about personal freedom, now we seem to believe in freedom only for ourselves, that is, if we are white and male.)

mschuster91 2y ago

> We are stumbling fools without systems and rules (organizations, institutions, laws, regulations, ...) to rely on. The wide masses yes - the 1% who is looking to profit immensely from the upcoming chaos not. DOGE is not about trimming government costs, it is about allowing the large companies to rip off the masses without repercussions (e.g. the planned demise of CFPB or OSHA/DoL) and it is about preparing the transfer of what used to be government-provided services at cost or subsidised to privatised for profit enterprises where the 1% profit (e.g. the dismantling of public schools). The end game is obvious, neofeudalism: everything that the 99% do shall generate profit for the 1%. We shall own nothing and rent/pay for everything. It begins with five to six figures medical bills at birth and ends with our funeral costs.

chinathrow 2y ago
The rich are endangering their riches in this experiment. The pitch forks will have their field day eventually. 2014 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...
- mschuster91 2y ago
  That's the insiduous thing we're seeing - when you have to work two jobs just to make rent on a dilapidated shack for a slumlord you don't have time to protest, and when your healthcare insurance depends on having a job (because there aren't charity-run hospitals around any more) you can't afford the risk getting fired for going on a strike, much less actual "direct action". On top of that, mass media controls the narratives way too hard - just look how fast Luigi Mangione got out of the news.
  - afavour 2y ago
    > just look how fast Luigi Mangione got out of the news. What news would there be? He was arrested and locked up, his court case hasn’t started. Should we have “Luigi still in jail” headlines?

ty6853 2y ago

Feds consumed <5% GDP during most non-war time between civil war and WW1. During which time standard of living and economy rose about as much during the post WW2 period of massively growing government and regulation. It's hard to take these apocalyptic premonitions about federal government reduction seriously.

someothherguyy 2y ago
I don't think appealing to the gilded age can be taken seriously. See for instance: https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919 https://www.investopedia.com/gilded-age-7692919
- joyeuse6701 2y ago
  For better or for worse, that GDP boom was enabled by the massive spending and outcome of the Civil War, much like WW2. To point to these moments and ignore the immediate massive historical events that preceded it seems like a serious oversight in the analysis.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    You chastise the comparison but then admit they're much alike, did you think that a complete accident. Obviously two different times are two different times but it's hilarious the hypocrisy you often see of regulatory proponents talking up post WW2 gains as the regulatory apparatus spun up -- but when you point out other post war periods with lower federal burdens suddenly the narrative changes to 'not like that!'
bbor 2y ago
…youre saying that life was good from 1870-1910? Reconstruction and the gilded age?? I mean, there was technological and medical improvements, sure, and continued urbanization. But that’s… those are some of our nations most shameful, inequal, racist years in its entire history. The federal government as it exists now was just getting started after we realized we needed it thanks to the civil war, and many local democratic systems were completely broken. More relevantly, we didn’t have cancer researchers, epidemiologists, the NSF, or, most relevantly, nuclear weapons. Finally, a HUGE majority of the costs of the federal government are social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending. I doubt even the biggest libertarian on here could advocate cutting any those with a straight face, unless they’re young and don’t know anyone older than them, and/or advocates isolationism. Regardless, this exact story makes it clear that the goal isn’t cutting the size of the government at all — it’s politicizing the civil service, and bringing it under the exclusive control of a supreme executive. They’re not exactly ashamed of it!

gitfan86 2y ago

[flagged]

someothherguyy 2y ago
> If you got your information from economic facts comparing Europe to USA this comment it hilarious I don't understand what you mean. Can you please point me to resources to help inform me instead of pointing and laughing?
- scarab92 2y ago
  Much of Europe is in a recession, or has stagnant economic growth at best. They've had left leaning governments for too long, and economic stagnation is the natural result of that. You can't regulate your way to prosperity.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    > They've had left leaning governments for too long, and economic stagnation is the natural result of that. You can't regulate your way to prosperity. Left-leaning political ideology implies regulation? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism A more convincing argument for me would detail the regulatory frameworks that lead to economic stagnation, not bucketing a whole continent in an attempt to correlate a glut of regulation with economic stagnation.
    - DecoySalamander 2y ago
      If you consider ancap to be a left-leaning ideology you should reread "Classification" section on the page you've linked.
      - someothherguyy 2y ago
        It sounds left-leaning? How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

throw0101d 2y ago

> We are stumbling fools without systems and rules (organizations, institutions, laws, regulations, ...) to rely on. There are no organization or institutions or anything else that matters: only people matter. If people don't bother to have integrity then "institutions" (or anything based around them) are irrelevant. "There are no institutions, only people." — https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1231219728619835395 https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1231219728619835395 (possibly quoting Papandreou) In the US context: > Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. * https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-0101 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-11-02-010...

nickdothutton 2y ago
We are told endlessly in the UK that "institutions are strong". This is about as foolishly optimistic a statement as I can recall hearing, from ostensibly serious people. Institutions are not strong. Institutions are made of people. People are weak, corrupt, lazy, stupid, and endlessly self-serving. Institutions are weak.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People are weak, corrupt, lazy, stupid, and endlessly self-serving. Institutions are weak This is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low-trust societies are filled with weak, corrupted, lazy and stupid leaders.
- scoofy 2y ago
  The problem with MBA’s is that they don’t value what decent men and women bring to the table. I’d rather pay double for an honest mechanic. Asymmetric information requires a ton of resources to protect against, or you can just know the person you’re dealing with is honest.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> many in this country are It's exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of the Silicon Valley elite. Between the stupidity and kowtowing it has revealed a startling amount of groupthink and cowardice, even among people I once held as independent thinkers.

llamaimperative 2y ago
I highly recommend everyone read the Curtis Yarvin NYTimes interview [linked below] to see the full extent of the intellectual bankruptcy. This guy is apparently seen as some meaningful thinker by the Silicon Valley elite (Vance and Andreesen have quoted him), but in literally his 3rd sentence just straight up lies. Yarvin's claim: "[In] F.D.R.’s first inaugural address,... he essentially says, Hey, Congress, give me absolute power, or I’ll take it anyway" From FDR's speech: "I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency..." Operative phrase: "I shall ask the Congress" These people are, at best, dishonest and cowardly. Even more disappointing, it's increasingly clear the only indicator of actual intelligence is net worth. This is rather lossy signal, unfortunately. Interview: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
- kernal 2y ago
  Why would any rational person read the rantings of a radical far left socialist on a site and newspaper known for spreading democrat propaganda? That’s like telling people to watch CNN and MSDNC to get their news.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Are you referring to Yarvin as a far left socialist? He's about as far from a socialist as you can get. Also: It's a literal interview lol. You get to read his own answers to (very light) skeptical questioning. You can see him completely elide (or forget, or not know?) that CEOs are accountable to boards and, ultimately, to shareholders. You get to see him dismiss his own child's fears about Trump's wall by first forgetting (or deceiving, again) that Trump did indeed start building a physical, literal wall, then assure his child that his life won't change as he attends a fancy private Mandarin immersion school in San Francisco. The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty just cannot help but seep out of this supposedly serious thinker! Of course the real value of his philosophy is its conclusion that the ultrawealthy should rule the world. So the ahistoricism, dishonesty, and internal incoherence hardly matter to the Silicon Valley elite.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> stems from weak regulation in the US to begin with I don't know about that, but certainly it has exposed a significant weakness in the US democratic structure: it is based on the supposition that everyone will follow the rules (i.e., accepting the results of an election, following the laws passed by congress, etc.) A president who defies both conventions and laws is hard to stop. The only mechanism is impeachment, and that as we have seen is _extremely difficult_ to do -- in many cases that has been used frivolously by both parties, but even in the case where it should have been a slam dunk -- Trump's attempted coup -- the most GOP senators were too afraid of their own re-election chances because of Trump's ability to "rile up the masses" (look at Liz Cheney). A climate of fear is an essential part of authoritarianism because it paralyzes those who might be able to take action to ensure that the democratic principles are upheld. When you have an angry mob attack the capitol building and threaten to kill politicians, and they are pardoned by the person who incited them, that generates a lot of fear.

nerdix 2y ago
This is correct. I don't think it is possible to design a democratic system that is impervious to authoritarianism when a large enough percentage of the population is in favor of it. After the last election, it is clear that a slight majority of Americans are either in favor of outright authoritarianism or are at least not turned off by it. I wonder how much is this is "rational" due to Congress being broken as an institution. Hyper-partisanship and an unchecked filibuster means that Congress is stuck in permanent gridlock. The only way to get anything done is through executive power. But the system wasn't designed to work that way and so the checks on executive power can seem stifling to progress. It seems that many are willing to look the other way if they feel like its the only way to get what they want done. Concern only seems to come into play when its the other side wielding power. And this seems to be true across the aisle. Many on the left were frustrated with Biden's perceived timidity when it came to exercising executive power. And I feel like he was pressured into doing things that he wasn't fully comfortable doing unilaterally (especially regarding student loan forgiveness). Of course, the difference is that Biden spent 40 years in the Senate, understands the role of Congress in government, and had no intention of "ignoring the rules". Trump isn't limited by that type of thinking since he had no experience with, no great knowledge of, or respect for American government.

skissane 2y ago

I think a lot of this “DOGE scenario” couldn’t happen in most of Europe, or Canada, or Australia/New Zealand - due to the US having a presidential instead of parliamentary system of government. In a parliamentary system, if the Prime Minister wants to merge/abolish/restructure government agencies, it normally just happens - because, most of the time, the Prime Minister can be confident the legislature will vote for any necessary legislation, since the PM’s party/coalition will control the legislature. So, the whole argument that Trump is illegally shutting down government agencies, why would a PM shut something down illegally when they can do it legally? The only exception might be in a minority government scenario, when the PM might not have the votes to get the necessary legislation passed - but, in such a scenario, if they decide to bypass the legislature and shut it down anyway, the legislature likely wouldn’t let them Similarly, this whole “impoundment” thing - in most parliamentary systems, the executive is under no obligation to spend appropriated funds, and if they decide not to, the legislative majority will not have any problem with it - because, the executive and the legislative majority are basically the same thing. It is only because in the US (and maybe other countries with presidential systems, such as much of Latin America), the legislature gets upset by the executive deciding not to spend appropriated funds, and tries to make it illegal for them to do so. (Although we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say-don’t be surprised if the current conservative SCOTUS majority decides that the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is at least partially unconstitutional, or else renders it judicially unenforceable, e.g. using the political question doctrine.) Many political scientists argue that the presidential system is inferior to the parliamentary, and produces political instability, gridlock, strongman (caudillo) rule. For a long time, while much of Latin America suffered from many of those problems, the US escaped them - whether due to wealth, cultural protective factors, or just plain good luck. However, with the return of caudillo Trump (arguably in his second term acting even more like a caudillo than in his first) and now the “DOGE scenario”, maybe the US’s luck has finally run out, and its politics are at last turning Latin American.

cyanydeez 2y ago

To be fair, the regime running this playbook simply wants different rules and the people who should stand in their way have spent a decade claiming the existing status quo will stop them. So, it's really hard to point out that we want to revert to the status quo because the winner of the last election was apathy in first place.

lumost 2y ago

Ultimately the system of checks and balances was designed to slow down change. The variety of term limits and actors meant that it would take a significant concentration of resources for a protracted period of time to consolidate power. The fact that the richest man in the world, acting with at least a visual approval of the next 10-100 richest people in the world has only managed some minor chaos is a testament to how insulated from economic power the US government was (in the grand scheme of things). Real issues will emerge if such concentration of power is made perpetual.

kamaal 2y ago
>>Ultimately the system of checks and balances was designed to slow down change. I think a good part of the world still doesn't get it. Progress is mostly a outcome of stability, not change, even less rapid change. This whole concept might sound counter intuitive. But think about it seriously. Exponential growth, when you factor in small losses in between comes when you stick to one process(that generates small gains) for long. Not by making rapid changes to a process(in hopes of making one big gain) for a long time.