3 ms·

Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and wor

by Kina 4mo ago

Whether or not you agree with how US laws are drafted, this administration has no logical foundation for anything it does which is a massively different and worse problem by orders of magnitude. This administration runs on whims. This is horrifying and there is real harm in this we have yet to see the full repercussions of.

AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem. If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma. Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power. It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.
  - AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
    In significant part it's because those checks were removed. Laws are supposed to come from Congress, but by volume most rules the public is subject to now come from unelected administrative agencies in the executive branch. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. Members of the US Senate, which laws are supposed to have to pass through, which confirm federal judges, and which do the impeachment trials, were originally appointed by the state legislatures, i.e. represented the states, until they were changed to be directly elected. The public's direct representatives were intended to be the House -- and House districts were intended to be small, until the number of seats was capped. So now the states have no representation in the federal government, and neither House districts nor state-wide Senate seats have small enough constituencies for individuals to be meaningfully heard by their representatives. Juries have the right to do jury nullification and it's one of the most powerful tools against bad laws. If you're on a jury and you think that it's the law which is wrong rather than the defendant's actions, you are not required to convict them. But defendants are essentially prohibited from telling juries that, so it almost never happens. Likewise, the list of procedural safeguards that were meant to protect people against abusive government prosecutions have been eroded to such an extent in the name of expedient mass incarceration that the freedom of any given person is down to the inclination of the government to charge them with something. Which in turn allows the government to govern through threats and demand things they have no right to demand, since they now have the ability to charge anyone with something else if they don't do whatever the government wants, regardless of whether the law requires them to do what they're being pressured to do, or even whether it's constitutionally permissible to make someone do that. This is all very bad but it's also not new. And it's what enables a tyrant when one comes, which is why it has needed to be fixed for some time now. But the best time to bolster checks and balances is before you remove them and the second best time is very soon.
mlrtime 4mo ago
[flagged]
- KlutzySofa 4mo ago
  You may be right, but there is a significant difference in how badly regulating crypto affects the broader economy compared to what the current administration is doing.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  I'm not sure how to weigh the previous administrations war on crypto and the current ones complete embracing of it. Not only does the president literally have his own cryptocurrency, they're trying hard to create a digital dollar based on crypto and likely amounting to public bank accounts directly with the federal reserve.
  - mlrtime 4mo ago
    The thread is about administration and regulation/banning technology and that previous administrations would not have. I don't see any evidence that would happen, but this is all speculation by everyone so it really doesn't matter.
_heimdall 4mo ago
This administration has been slapped back by the courts more then I would have expected though. If we had fewer laws granting pretty broad powers to the executive branch I have to assume more of the administration's actions would be stopped.
- throwawayqqq11 4mo ago
  You are not constructive when you only want to strap gov. powers. The resulting void is ripe for the private sector to capture. To counter this, you need capable public institutions, so a constructive approach would mean, more precise regulations with balanced liberties and bureaucratic aid, not plain less of it. (IMO, this general rejection without a propper problem description nor solution is a product of corporate propaganda to achieve this exact void.)
  - _heimdall 4mo ago
    Its worth noting that I'm specifically talking about federal powers in the US here. I have a lower bar for state and local governments. The whole point of that system is to allow states to try different approaches and policies, if enough states agree on similar approaches maybe it can be pulled up to the federal level. In the case of the Trump administration, this thread didn't have specific policies people took issue with but I'd say most likely candidates roll back to issues that I wouldn't want to see the federal government responsible for. Immigration is probably an outlier, though that's a whole can of worms and I disagree with most immigration restrictions in part because of the interplay between immigration and entitlement programs.
    - Kina 4mo ago
      > this thread didn’t have specific policies people took issue with Can you give me a consistent principal that that the government of the day is doing outside of flopping around screaming America First while shooting itself in the foot while harassing citizens and critics it deems undesirable? Meanwhile Trump preens about like a pig prancing in front of a mirror and everyone is too weak to publicly acknowledge the farce we have all helped facilitate. - The immigration policy is nonsensical, incoherent and basically driven by, “I don’t like others”. If it were consistent we would have proper review processes. A respected Somali FIFA referee would not be banned from the US for reasons that apparently cannot be disclosed. - The AI policy is just based on whatever exec has the right person’s ear as demonstrated by the export controls being enforced on Anthropic’s recent models entirely due to Andy Jassy talking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. - Onshoring jobs has not moved in any meaningful manner, there is no evidence of this outside of Trump screaming about unproductive and illegal tariffs which he continues to try and argue are not the consumer tax that they are. - Deconstructing science and practical field work has caused a humanitarian and supply chain disaster. Pest prevention programs are in chaotic states, diseases that the US helped limit worldwide are on the rise, and we have destabilized multiple regions where we used to provide food security which also helped prop up American agriculture. - There is no crypto policy in the United States. Crypto businesses have spent money trying to stop this. What does crypto actually facilitate? The central bank wasn't created just to annoy people or impede their ability to profit. Should we go back to JP Morgan locking bankers in his personal library and berating them until they agreed to start lending money again?

by Kina 4mo ago

AnthonyMouse 4mo ago

The lack of a logical foundation isn't the novelty. The whole system has run on whims and backfilled reasoning for a long time. That's the problem. If it had always been the rule of law until now then we would have an apparatus set up to impose checks and balances and accountability on government officials, but because those things have so atrophied from continuous contempt and neglect, no one knows how to demonstrate that what Trump is doing is wrong without also conceding that half of what the government has been doing for decades is wrong. But they also don't want to stop doing those things and therefore have rather a dilemma. Of course, that's assuming you actually demand logical consistency. If you don't care about that you can do whatever you want -- which is kind of the trouble.

_heimdall 4mo ago
While I agree as implemented today our system of checks and balances is faltering, those systems do exist. Separation of powers and our three branch system was designed precisely to try and force checks on power. It may be failing, but the problem isn't that those systems weren't put in place.
- AnthonyMouse 4mo ago
  In significant part it's because those checks were removed. Laws are supposed to come from Congress, but by volume most rules the public is subject to now come from unelected administrative agencies in the executive branch. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. Members of the US Senate, which laws are supposed to have to pass through, which confirm federal judges, and which do the impeachment trials, were originally appointed by the state legislatures, i.e. represented the states, until they were changed to be directly elected. The public's direct representatives were intended to be the House -- and House districts were intended to be small, until the number of seats was capped. So now the states have no representation in the federal government, and neither House districts nor state-wide Senate seats have small enough constituencies for individuals to be meaningfully heard by their representatives. Juries have the right to do jury nullification and it's one of the most powerful tools against bad laws. If you're on a jury and you think that it's the law which is wrong rather than the defendant's actions, you are not required to convict them. But defendants are essentially prohibited from telling juries that, so it almost never happens. Likewise, the list of procedural safeguards that were meant to protect people against abusive government prosecutions have been eroded to such an extent in the name of expedient mass incarceration that the freedom of any given person is down to the inclination of the government to charge them with something. Which in turn allows the government to govern through threats and demand things they have no right to demand, since they now have the ability to charge anyone with something else if they don't do whatever the government wants, regardless of whether the law requires them to do what they're being pressured to do, or even whether it's constitutionally permissible to make someone do that. This is all very bad but it's also not new. And it's what enables a tyrant when one comes, which is why it has needed to be fixed for some time now. But the best time to bolster checks and balances is before you remove them and the second best time is very soon.

mlrtime 4mo ago

[flagged]

KlutzySofa 4mo ago
You may be right, but there is a significant difference in how badly regulating crypto affects the broader economy compared to what the current administration is doing.
_heimdall 4mo ago
I'm not sure how to weigh the previous administrations war on crypto and the current ones complete embracing of it. Not only does the president literally have his own cryptocurrency, they're trying hard to create a digital dollar based on crypto and likely amounting to public bank accounts directly with the federal reserve.
- mlrtime 4mo ago
  The thread is about administration and regulation/banning technology and that previous administrations would not have. I don't see any evidence that would happen, but this is all speculation by everyone so it really doesn't matter.

_heimdall 4mo ago

This administration has been slapped back by the courts more then I would have expected though. If we had fewer laws granting pretty broad powers to the executive branch I have to assume more of the administration's actions would be stopped.

throwawayqqq11 4mo ago
You are not constructive when you only want to strap gov. powers. The resulting void is ripe for the private sector to capture. To counter this, you need capable public institutions, so a constructive approach would mean, more precise regulations with balanced liberties and bureaucratic aid, not plain less of it. (IMO, this general rejection without a propper problem description nor solution is a product of corporate propaganda to achieve this exact void.)
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  Its worth noting that I'm specifically talking about federal powers in the US here. I have a lower bar for state and local governments. The whole point of that system is to allow states to try different approaches and policies, if enough states agree on similar approaches maybe it can be pulled up to the federal level. In the case of the Trump administration, this thread didn't have specific policies people took issue with but I'd say most likely candidates roll back to issues that I wouldn't want to see the federal government responsible for. Immigration is probably an outlier, though that's a whole can of worms and I disagree with most immigration restrictions in part because of the interplay between immigration and entitlement programs.
  - Kina 4mo ago
    > this thread didn’t have specific policies people took issue with Can you give me a consistent principal that that the government of the day is doing outside of flopping around screaming America First while shooting itself in the foot while harassing citizens and critics it deems undesirable? Meanwhile Trump preens about like a pig prancing in front of a mirror and everyone is too weak to publicly acknowledge the farce we have all helped facilitate. - The immigration policy is nonsensical, incoherent and basically driven by, “I don’t like others”. If it were consistent we would have proper review processes. A respected Somali FIFA referee would not be banned from the US for reasons that apparently cannot be disclosed. - The AI policy is just based on whatever exec has the right person’s ear as demonstrated by the export controls being enforced on Anthropic’s recent models entirely due to Andy Jassy talking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. - Onshoring jobs has not moved in any meaningful manner, there is no evidence of this outside of Trump screaming about unproductive and illegal tariffs which he continues to try and argue are not the consumer tax that they are. - Deconstructing science and practical field work has caused a humanitarian and supply chain disaster. Pest prevention programs are in chaotic states, diseases that the US helped limit worldwide are on the rise, and we have destabilized multiple regions where we used to provide food security which also helped prop up American agriculture. - There is no crypto policy in the United States. Crypto businesses have spent money trying to stop this. What does crypto actually facilitate? The central bank wasn't created just to annoy people or impede their ability to profit. Should we go back to JP Morgan locking bankers in his personal library and berating them until they agreed to start lending money again?