5 ms·

This is also very foreseeable for an administrative state, and this slippery slope has been predicted for over a century. Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats

by nickff 5mo ago

This is also very foreseeable for an administrative state, and this slippery slope has been predicted for over a century. Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats) is just as opaque/unaccountable/corrupt, and as the extent of their power grew, it was inevitable that the political leadership would exploit the power (as has already happened many times before). It seems like nobody (at least on the liberal end of the spectrum) really cared about the arbitrary use of power when it was mostly left-liberals making the choices. The way to fix this is to reduce the power of the administrative state, not to just complain about Trump, but I have little hope of a real solution.

mothballed 5mo ago
NCI and NSF recipients getting a taste of what EPA, DEA and ATF was doing to the plebs all along with random "interpretations" and bad-faith presentations of them to judge and jury. Maybe that whole "the academics and bureaucrats are so smart we totally need to cede power from congress to the executive" wasn't such a bright idea after all. Of course, it's totally lost on the academic-bureaucratic class that the anti-intellectuals wouldn't hesitate to cut off their nose to spite their face by electing a president that would turn around and surprise pikachu the academics with the very machine they had helped build. Now that academics are losing their grips within the bureaucratic apparatus, suddenly they are deciding to rethink their strategy -- but it's not a coming to Jesus moment, but rather just a reactionary response.
- pianoben 5mo ago
  Right! Naturally, our Congress is full of technical and administrative expertise and totally has the time, patience, and will to cleanly and carefully craft the wide body of regulation we've grown to require for a smooth and healthy and productive society. No reason for those awful technocrats to usurp such authority when we've got a capable and knowledgable legislative branch capable of doing the work just as well.
  - mothballed 5mo ago
    Don't worry, we're going to enjoy the fruits of your thought process real well and good -- the very last guy left in the House with any constitutional focus just got blasted out with the most expensive outside funding campaign against a rep in the entire history of the USA. It looks like the bureaucratic state is just getting on its next level roll, so enjoy the ride. A few of you may even realize in the coming years why the 10th amendment wasn't meant to just be an inconvenience to ignore. But I'm not dumb enough to think you'll believe my words, you'll only learn by experience.
    - mindslight 5mo ago
      I've been where you are. In your coming years you will realize that the bureaucracy had at least brought us stability, prosperity, and a modicum of protection against abuse from big business, the rough edges for small businesses and individuals near the edge of the law notwithstanding. Characterizing Massie's loss as an aspect of that bureaucracy is a mistake - Trumpism is a repudiation of the bureaucracy in favor of autocracy, while the all of the authoritarianism sticks around (or even grows!). Expect those rough edges to become much more arbitrary and capricious. And no, accelerationism or "I told you so" won't save you.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    > Naturally, our Congress is full of technical and administrative expertise… Congress knew of that issue; for decades, Congress has delegated the nitty gritty to regulatory agencies, who employ said experts. SCOTUS, on the other hand, are the idiots you seek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
  - pdonis 5mo ago
    > the wide body of regulation we've grown to require for a smooth and healthy and productive society. If you actually believe this is true, I have some sad news for you. Does the term "regulatory capture" mean anything to you? > those awful technocrats If you actually believe the "technocrats" have the knowledge required to craft regulations that actually are a net benefit, again, I have some sad news for you.
rightbyte 5mo ago
> Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats) is just as opaque/unaccountable/corrupt I don't agree. The division of power is most likely preferable. Otherwise the politician also become the beurocrat but way more arbitrary.
- nickff 5mo ago
  When the administrators/bureaucrats (whatever your preferred terms are) have very limited and defined powers, I agree they are different. When the administrative powers become wide-sweeping and ill-defined, the powers are difficult to differentiate from those of the politicians.
  - albumen 5mo ago
    What you’re seeing is the result of the USA voting in a party and president that made it clear beforehand that they were going to install puppet civil servants to do their will. Most other developed countries have avoided this scenario.
    - kergonath 5mo ago
      It’s important that most of the civil service is staffed by permanent employees hired through a fair and well-defined process and not appointed for political reasons.
      - mikeyouse 5mo ago
        It's equally important to note that the current administration is absolutely gutting those formerly non-political permanent hires and replacing them with apparatchiks. It's going to be very difficult to remove them all from office if this nightmare ever ends.
sdenton4 5mo ago
Going for whataboutism in the same week trump establishes a $2B find to pay off his cronies and tries to permanently exempt himself from taxes is laughable.
- nickff 5mo ago
  My points are not whataboutism; I’m saying this was predictable, forecast, and inevitable. Whataboutism focuses on tangential (or unrelated) things.
bodiekane 5mo ago
Where do you imagine the power goes when you've taken it away from "the administrative state"? I can totally understand an argument that says a certain administrative function was not working well and needed to be fixed. But if you're just suggesting destroying these institutions, what fills that power vacuum other than the far worse situation we're seeing unfolding now?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > Where do you imagine the power goes when you've taken it away from "the administrative state"? Congress. The courts have clumsily dismantled the administrative state. But there are more options than an unchecked executive and unaccountable unelecteds.
  - exe34 5mo ago
    Congress still has all the power granted to it by the constitution. They chose not to use those powers, because the republicans support the orange turd.
    - nickff 5mo ago
      Congress has been delegating huge amounts of power to the administrative state (via the Executive Branch) for longer than Donald J Trump has been alive.
      - exe34 5mo ago
        Any powers that congress delegates, they can pull back.
nielsbot 5mo ago
The current path is replacing bureaucratic power with unchecked executive power which is the opposite of what you want. Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want.
- JCTheDenthog 5mo ago
  >Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want. Under Chevron we had the opposite of that: bureaucrats who had ridiculously wide latitude to make their own rules. What we actually need is for congress to take back control instead of passing all power and authority to the executive branch.
  - pocksuppet 5mo ago
    Congress always had the power to remove delegated power from an institution if it didn't like how that institution was performing. It's also had the power to disband the executive branch regime at any point since January 20. Everything that is happening now is happening with the complete approval of Congress.
    - JCTheDenthog 5mo ago
      Correct, and congress hasn't been exercising that power for the better part of a century now. The War Powers Resolution was 1973, for example. I don't know what the exact solution is, but something needs to change in the structure and incentives of congress to incentivize them to exercise power again. Eliminating the filibuster and drastically increasing the total number of representatives seem like the best ways to me, but I'm open yo other possibilities.
      - nielsbot 5mo ago
        Money out of politics
      - pocksuppet 5mo ago
        Nobody should be incentivized to exercise power for the sake of exercising power. They should be incentivized to exercise power to change things they don't agree with. And they already have that incentive. And they are already using it. What is there to change?

by nickff 5mo ago

mothballed 5mo ago

NCI and NSF recipients getting a taste of what EPA, DEA and ATF was doing to the plebs all along with random "interpretations" and bad-faith presentations of them to judge and jury. Maybe that whole "the academics and bureaucrats are so smart we totally need to cede power from congress to the executive" wasn't such a bright idea after all. Of course, it's totally lost on the academic-bureaucratic class that the anti-intellectuals wouldn't hesitate to cut off their nose to spite their face by electing a president that would turn around and surprise pikachu the academics with the very machine they had helped build. Now that academics are losing their grips within the bureaucratic apparatus, suddenly they are deciding to rethink their strategy -- but it's not a coming to Jesus moment, but rather just a reactionary response.

pianoben 5mo ago
Right! Naturally, our Congress is full of technical and administrative expertise and totally has the time, patience, and will to cleanly and carefully craft the wide body of regulation we've grown to require for a smooth and healthy and productive society. No reason for those awful technocrats to usurp such authority when we've got a capable and knowledgable legislative branch capable of doing the work just as well.
- mothballed 5mo ago
  Don't worry, we're going to enjoy the fruits of your thought process real well and good -- the very last guy left in the House with any constitutional focus just got blasted out with the most expensive outside funding campaign against a rep in the entire history of the USA. It looks like the bureaucratic state is just getting on its next level roll, so enjoy the ride. A few of you may even realize in the coming years why the 10th amendment wasn't meant to just be an inconvenience to ignore. But I'm not dumb enough to think you'll believe my words, you'll only learn by experience.
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    I've been where you are. In your coming years you will realize that the bureaucracy had at least brought us stability, prosperity, and a modicum of protection against abuse from big business, the rough edges for small businesses and individuals near the edge of the law notwithstanding. Characterizing Massie's loss as an aspect of that bureaucracy is a mistake - Trumpism is a repudiation of the bureaucracy in favor of autocracy, while the all of the authoritarianism sticks around (or even grows!). Expect those rough edges to become much more arbitrary and capricious. And no, accelerationism or "I told you so" won't save you.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  > Naturally, our Congress is full of technical and administrative expertise… Congress knew of that issue; for decades, Congress has delegated the nitty gritty to regulatory agencies, who employ said experts. SCOTUS, on the other hand, are the idiots you seek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
- pdonis 5mo ago
  > the wide body of regulation we've grown to require for a smooth and healthy and productive society. If you actually believe this is true, I have some sad news for you. Does the term "regulatory capture" mean anything to you? > those awful technocrats If you actually believe the "technocrats" have the knowledge required to craft regulations that actually are a net benefit, again, I have some sad news for you.

rightbyte 5mo ago

> Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats) is just as opaque/unaccountable/corrupt I don't agree. The division of power is most likely preferable. Otherwise the politician also become the beurocrat but way more arbitrary.

nickff 5mo ago
When the administrators/bureaucrats (whatever your preferred terms are) have very limited and defined powers, I agree they are different. When the administrative powers become wide-sweeping and ill-defined, the powers are difficult to differentiate from those of the politicians.
- albumen 5mo ago
  What you’re seeing is the result of the USA voting in a party and president that made it clear beforehand that they were going to install puppet civil servants to do their will. Most other developed countries have avoided this scenario.
  - kergonath 5mo ago
    It’s important that most of the civil service is staffed by permanent employees hired through a fair and well-defined process and not appointed for political reasons.
    - mikeyouse 5mo ago
      It's equally important to note that the current administration is absolutely gutting those formerly non-political permanent hires and replacing them with apparatchiks. It's going to be very difficult to remove them all from office if this nightmare ever ends.

sdenton4 5mo ago

Going for whataboutism in the same week trump establishes a $2B find to pay off his cronies and tries to permanently exempt himself from taxes is laughable.

nickff 5mo ago
My points are not whataboutism; I’m saying this was predictable, forecast, and inevitable. Whataboutism focuses on tangential (or unrelated) things.

bodiekane 5mo ago

Where do you imagine the power goes when you've taken it away from "the administrative state"? I can totally understand an argument that says a certain administrative function was not working well and needed to be fixed. But if you're just suggesting destroying these institutions, what fills that power vacuum other than the far worse situation we're seeing unfolding now?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> Where do you imagine the power goes when you've taken it away from "the administrative state"? Congress. The courts have clumsily dismantled the administrative state. But there are more options than an unchecked executive and unaccountable unelecteds.
- exe34 5mo ago
  Congress still has all the power granted to it by the constitution. They chose not to use those powers, because the republicans support the orange turd.
  - nickff 5mo ago
    Congress has been delegating huge amounts of power to the administrative state (via the Executive Branch) for longer than Donald J Trump has been alive.
    - exe34 5mo ago
      Any powers that congress delegates, they can pull back.

nielsbot 5mo ago

The current path is replacing bureaucratic power with unchecked executive power which is the opposite of what you want. Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want.

JCTheDenthog 5mo ago
>Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want. Under Chevron we had the opposite of that: bureaucrats who had ridiculously wide latitude to make their own rules. What we actually need is for congress to take back control instead of passing all power and authority to the executive branch.
- pocksuppet 5mo ago
  Congress always had the power to remove delegated power from an institution if it didn't like how that institution was performing. It's also had the power to disband the executive branch regime at any point since January 20. Everything that is happening now is happening with the complete approval of Congress.
  - JCTheDenthog 5mo ago
    Correct, and congress hasn't been exercising that power for the better part of a century now. The War Powers Resolution was 1973, for example. I don't know what the exact solution is, but something needs to change in the structure and incentives of congress to incentivize them to exercise power again. Eliminating the filibuster and drastically increasing the total number of representatives seem like the best ways to me, but I'm open yo other possibilities.
    - nielsbot 5mo ago
      Money out of politics
    - pocksuppet 5mo ago
      Nobody should be incentivized to exercise power for the sake of exercising power. They should be incentivized to exercise power to change things they don't agree with. And they already have that incentive. And they are already using it. What is there to change?