4 ms·

It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner clas

It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Then explain why the rule was created in the first place?
- mjcl 1y ago
  Democrats see government differently than Republicans.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Well yes, I agree. But GP was saying "government" writ large behaves XYZ.
    - collingreen 1y ago
      Which absolutely does not imply a monolith of people all working in perfect lock step. It seems like you're looking to fight on the internet - would you consider a different activity instead?
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. > If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense. No I actually think it's important for people to square views like "government is a way to enrich the owner class" with actual reality, such as the fact that the government when administered by a different party did the exact opposite.
  - rapind 1y ago
    I would be even more specific and say that Lina Khan sees government differently than most Republicans and Democrats.
    - coldpie 1y ago
      I agree, though I think it is worth giving some credit to the people who chose her & appointed her. They didn't have to do that. It was one of the more impressive moves by the previous admin, and won them a lot of points from me.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  This administration is making a pattern out of 1. Creating a rule or executive order to score easy political points with their base, and then 2. Immediately walking it back or “postponing” it once those points were scored and their base are not paying attention. Trolling-As-Governance.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
airstrike 1y ago
"owner class" is too outdated and myopic. It's also incorrect, as plenty of people born into low income households go on to become elected representatives. It's better to think about it in terms of "people who choose to pursue positions of power to benefit themselves financially while cosplaying as wanting to help the average person".
- flatline 1y ago
  Just because they weren’t born into the owner class (or “capital class”) doesn’t mean they didn’t work their way into it. That’s kind of the American dream.
  - Retric 1y ago
    You can only become wealthy later in life at which point you can’t advantage your past self. Thus new money receives fewer benefits than old money from the exact same policies. Further having 100m at 40 doesn’t suddenly bring the kind of social connections that going to the right schools and the right parties would. At the extremes, the average lottery winner is surrounded by people asking for help, the average Fortune 500 CEO’s social circle aren’t. So if they suddenly fall on hard times the lottery winner is stuck but that CEO may very well claw their way back. It’s still possible for poor people to succeed and 3rd+ generation wealth to fail, but the odds are wildly different.
- buran77 1y ago
  With any other disadvantaged/discriminated class (skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc.), getting elected in power doesn't change the disadvantage. So the incentive is still there to fight for that equality. This is not so when it comes to the poor. Once in power they are no longer poor so the incentive to fix any issue related to this almost entirely evaporates.
  - MadcapJake 1y ago
    Elected officials should make the average salary from the year prior. If it's not enough to survive then they'll need to do something about it!
oblio 1y ago
Nihilism is useless. We've made enormous progress since the first human stepped on this planet so I would say we've disproven nihilism for good. Modern governments are definitely not purely tools for the owner class to enrich themselves.
- fooblaster 1y ago
  He's talking about the trump administration, not making a general point about all governments.
  - squigz 1y ago
    GP made no indication it was about this specific administration and not about government in principle.
    - tobr 1y ago
      It’s abundantly clear from context.
      - andrewflnr 1y ago
        I don't think it was. Certainly that's a position that people have held since long before Trump.
        fuzzer371 1y ago
        [flagged]
        andrewflnr 1y ago
        I might just be arguing to argue, but it did read to me like "nothing has really changed"-style cynicism. (I don't personally agree, but that's a different question.)
- rixed 1y ago
Angostura 1y ago
It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  Well, you being collective.
- dylan604 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - garciasn 1y ago
    I think your comment is pedantic; while I appreciate pedantry, it's a bit absurd. It's a democracy; 'we' get what 'we' voted to have.
    - iAMkenough 1y ago
      As an appreciator of pedantry, what do you say to those who claim it's more of an "oligarchy" than a "democracy" in the United States these days?
      - garciasn 1y ago
        'We' voted for what 'we' got. The Democrats did not message well enough to win over the majority of the popular vote nor the electoral vote; full stop. So; if we are indeed an oligarchy and not a democracy, the majority want to live in an oligarchy, find other messaging that the GOP puts out as more important in their individual day-to-day lives, or the messaging that the Democrats put out isn't resonating enough to overpower the GOP's. That said, I don't believe in focusing on class-based politics in this day and age; the Supreme Court has made it clear that money is permissible to influence election outcomes and that can and does drive these sorts of structural shifts in politics to allow for the ultra-wealthy to massively influence political outcomes in our country. TL;DR: I would tell someone that being under an oligarchy may be true (I cannot be certain as I'm not a political scientist), but there are other far more important issues TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE that resonate better and should be the focus of future candidate messaging in order to win the election.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

Then explain why the rule was created in the first place?

mjcl 1y ago
Democrats see government differently than Republicans.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Well yes, I agree. But GP was saying "government" writ large behaves XYZ.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    Which absolutely does not imply a monolith of people all working in perfect lock step. It seems like you're looking to fight on the internet - would you consider a different activity instead?
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      > It's absurd if you believe the point of government is to be by, for, and of the people. > If you see government as a way to enhance the ability of the owner class to enrich themselves, it makes perfect sense. No I actually think it's important for people to square views like "government is a way to enrich the owner class" with actual reality, such as the fact that the government when administered by a different party did the exact opposite.
- rapind 1y ago
  I would be even more specific and say that Lina Khan sees government differently than most Republicans and Democrats.
  - coldpie 1y ago
    I agree, though I think it is worth giving some credit to the people who chose her & appointed her. They didn't have to do that. It was one of the more impressive moves by the previous admin, and won them a lot of points from me.
ryandrake 1y ago
This administration is making a pattern out of 1. Creating a rule or executive order to score easy political points with their base, and then 2. Immediately walking it back or “postponing” it once those points were scored and their base are not paying attention. Trolling-As-Governance.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

airstrike 1y ago

"owner class" is too outdated and myopic. It's also incorrect, as plenty of people born into low income households go on to become elected representatives. It's better to think about it in terms of "people who choose to pursue positions of power to benefit themselves financially while cosplaying as wanting to help the average person".

flatline 1y ago
Just because they weren’t born into the owner class (or “capital class”) doesn’t mean they didn’t work their way into it. That’s kind of the American dream.
- Retric 1y ago
  You can only become wealthy later in life at which point you can’t advantage your past self. Thus new money receives fewer benefits than old money from the exact same policies. Further having 100m at 40 doesn’t suddenly bring the kind of social connections that going to the right schools and the right parties would. At the extremes, the average lottery winner is surrounded by people asking for help, the average Fortune 500 CEO’s social circle aren’t. So if they suddenly fall on hard times the lottery winner is stuck but that CEO may very well claw their way back. It’s still possible for poor people to succeed and 3rd+ generation wealth to fail, but the odds are wildly different.
buran77 1y ago
With any other disadvantaged/discriminated class (skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc.), getting elected in power doesn't change the disadvantage. So the incentive is still there to fight for that equality. This is not so when it comes to the poor. Once in power they are no longer poor so the incentive to fix any issue related to this almost entirely evaporates.
- MadcapJake 1y ago
  Elected officials should make the average salary from the year prior. If it's not enough to survive then they'll need to do something about it!

oblio 1y ago

Nihilism is useless. We've made enormous progress since the first human stepped on this planet so I would say we've disproven nihilism for good. Modern governments are definitely not purely tools for the owner class to enrich themselves.

fooblaster 1y ago
He's talking about the trump administration, not making a general point about all governments.
- squigz 1y ago
  GP made no indication it was about this specific administration and not about government in principle.
  - tobr 1y ago
    It’s abundantly clear from context.
    - andrewflnr 1y ago
      I don't think it was. Certainly that's a position that people have held since long before Trump.
      - fuzzer371 1y ago
        [flagged]
        andrewflnr 1y ago
        I might just be arguing to argue, but it did read to me like "nothing has really changed"-style cynicism. (I don't personally agree, but that's a different question.)
rixed 1y ago

Angostura 1y ago

It’s almost as if the previous administration was focussed more on the former, and the current administration more on the latter. I guess you get the government you vote for.

NewJazz 1y ago
Well, you being collective.
dylan604 1y ago
[flagged]
- garciasn 1y ago
  I think your comment is pedantic; while I appreciate pedantry, it's a bit absurd. It's a democracy; 'we' get what 'we' voted to have.
  - iAMkenough 1y ago
    As an appreciator of pedantry, what do you say to those who claim it's more of an "oligarchy" than a "democracy" in the United States these days?
    - garciasn 1y ago
      'We' voted for what 'we' got. The Democrats did not message well enough to win over the majority of the popular vote nor the electoral vote; full stop. So; if we are indeed an oligarchy and not a democracy, the majority want to live in an oligarchy, find other messaging that the GOP puts out as more important in their individual day-to-day lives, or the messaging that the Democrats put out isn't resonating enough to overpower the GOP's. That said, I don't believe in focusing on class-based politics in this day and age; the Supreme Court has made it clear that money is permissible to influence election outcomes and that can and does drive these sorts of structural shifts in politics to allow for the ultra-wealthy to massively influence political outcomes in our country. TL;DR: I would tell someone that being under an oligarchy may be true (I cannot be certain as I'm not a political scientist), but there are other far more important issues TO THE GENERAL ELECTORATE that resonate better and should be the focus of future candidate messaging in order to win the election.