5 ms·

You don't get to do that with people's lives.

lazide 1y ago
Clearly you’ve never dealt with a government before.
avidphantasm 1y ago
In starting from scratch, you also run the risk of recreating, from first principles, the thing your are trying to replace.
- CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  If only someone thought of this 240 years ago when some peeps got frustrated enough with their government to fight their way through a separation from that government.
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    Or 165 years ago when people tried to fight through separation, and arguably got most of what they wanted even after losing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA
- coldtea 1y ago
  And in trying to merely restructure you're also running the risk to carry over all pathologies, bad actors, "code debt", and general baggage, of the thing you're trying to restructure. Choices...
  - avidphantasm 1y ago
    Yeah, I think this is why starting with a smaller part(s) of a big system that is more-or-less working and building on that is maybe the best we can do.
coldtea 1y ago
How do you think policy that affects whole groups of people, or even a whole country, is made? Not talking about just Trump/DOGE, or even just US or just 2025. In general and globally. Goverments and lawmakers do get to "do that with people's lives". And they do that, affecting them, all the time. Including affecting them negatively a lot of the time. And it gets worse: ineffective bureucracies (or incompetend ones) also "get to do that with people's lives" ["that" being: affecting them negatively, destroying their livehood, even causing deaths, e.g. consider some country's organization similar to FEMA being incompetent when there's a crisis].
- eptcyka 1y ago
  But you just don't get to start over with someone's life. You can't unfuck a life.
serf 1y ago
it's a shame government itself has never been bound by that rule in the past.
bpt3 1y ago
What does this mean, practically? We can never reduce the size of the federal workforce because it means people will lose jobs? We can never cut any federal benefit or subsidy regardless of the cost, importance, or overall value to society because someone, somewhere is benefiting from it?
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  Democrats significantly cut the government and Al Gore led the effort. It had some issues though is widely considered a success in hindsight. That was a scapel, DOGE appears to be a drunken flamethrower.
  - bpt3 1y ago
    Yes, I understand that Democrats have cut government in the past. I was young, but I remember cries of "you can't do this to people!" then as well, just like we hear from a select group of people every time any cut is contemplated, which is why I asked the parent poster what exactly they mean by their comment.
  - cjbgkagh 1y ago
    Democrats cut the government because they were unable to resist Republican cuts, so if we’re drawing a causal link I think it would be fairer to say Republicans made the cuts during a time when a Democrat was president. Also the public blamed the Republicans for the shutdowns which reelected Clinton and is probably the reason the Republicans stoped caring so much about the deficit.
- mhalle 1y ago
  Here is a reference to the "Reinventing Government" effort that was implemented during the Clinton administration and considered highly successful (and legal): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Rei...
  - bpt3 1y ago
philipallstar 1y ago
You can do it with structures maintained by taxing other people's labour, though.

Clearly you’ve never dealt with a government before.

In starting from scratch, you also run the risk of recreating, from first principles, the thing your are trying to replace.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
If only someone thought of this 240 years ago when some peeps got frustrated enough with their government to fight their way through a separation from that government.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  Or 165 years ago when people tried to fight through separation, and arguably got most of what they wanted even after losing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4kI2h3iotA
coldtea 1y ago
And in trying to merely restructure you're also running the risk to carry over all pathologies, bad actors, "code debt", and general baggage, of the thing you're trying to restructure. Choices...
- avidphantasm 1y ago
  Yeah, I think this is why starting with a smaller part(s) of a big system that is more-or-less working and building on that is maybe the best we can do.

coldtea 1y ago

How do you think policy that affects whole groups of people, or even a whole country, is made? Not talking about just Trump/DOGE, or even just US or just 2025. In general and globally. Goverments and lawmakers do get to "do that with people's lives". And they do that, affecting them, all the time. Including affecting them negatively a lot of the time. And it gets worse: ineffective bureucracies (or incompetend ones) also "get to do that with people's lives" ["that" being: affecting them negatively, destroying their livehood, even causing deaths, e.g. consider some country's organization similar to FEMA being incompetent when there's a crisis].

eptcyka 1y ago
But you just don't get to start over with someone's life. You can't unfuck a life.

serf 1y ago

it's a shame government itself has never been bound by that rule in the past.

bpt3 1y ago

What does this mean, practically? We can never reduce the size of the federal workforce because it means people will lose jobs? We can never cut any federal benefit or subsidy regardless of the cost, importance, or overall value to society because someone, somewhere is benefiting from it?

paulryanrogers 1y ago
Democrats significantly cut the government and Al Gore led the effort. It had some issues though is widely considered a success in hindsight. That was a scapel, DOGE appears to be a drunken flamethrower.
- bpt3 1y ago
  Yes, I understand that Democrats have cut government in the past. I was young, but I remember cries of "you can't do this to people!" then as well, just like we hear from a select group of people every time any cut is contemplated, which is why I asked the parent poster what exactly they mean by their comment.
- cjbgkagh 1y ago
  Democrats cut the government because they were unable to resist Republican cuts, so if we’re drawing a causal link I think it would be fairer to say Republicans made the cuts during a time when a Democrat was president. Also the public blamed the Republicans for the shutdowns which reelected Clinton and is probably the reason the Republicans stoped caring so much about the deficit.
mhalle 1y ago
Here is a reference to the "Reinventing Government" effort that was implemented during the Clinton administration and considered highly successful (and legal): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Rei...
- bpt3 1y ago

philipallstar 1y ago

You can do it with structures maintained by taxing other people's labour, though.