4 ms·

Mostly, the law is not creating the right incentives. In this case in particular, I don't think it's so much a matter of speed: I suspect the current US admin w

Mostly, the law is not creating the right incentives. In this case in particular, I don't think it's so much a matter of speed: I suspect the current US admin would still sow the chaos they do to the same degree if it was ruled illegal within a week instead of within months.

mrandish 2mo ago
Agreed. There's little doubt the admin knew they'd lose in court before they did it but they also knew it would still hurt Anthropic and make an example showing what happens to "any vendor who tries to put restrictions on the DoW's use of their product."
ElProlactin 2mo ago
You're right: the current administration would find a way because they don't care what the law says. The law, to them, is a system to be hacked when necessary. Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, various checks and balances, etc.) but in practice, any system is only as good as the most powerful people are decent and respectful of it. If you have someone in the most powerful position (the executive) who doesn't respect the law and who isn't willing to, with wisdom in his or her heart, exercise restraint with the understanding that protecting the integrity of the system is ultimately more important than getting your way, the law stands no chance.
- bobthepanda 2mo ago
  An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.
  - klik99 2mo ago
    This is true but every recent president has expanded powers, and had their party agree. Due to my age, I first noticed it with Bush then when Obama continued it, it felt weird to be fine with allowing more power in the executive branch when it’s someone you support, because that’ll add to the precedent for the next person who you don’t support. The presidency has come a long way since Washington and Trump 2.0 is a clear result / continuation of what’s been happening for as long as I’ve been paying attention.
    - somenameforme 2mo ago
      Exactly. People forget things like Obama signing a law into existence that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without trial or charge if you claim they're connected to terrorism. [1] As far as I know that law has not yet been used. However that leads to two issues. (1) It could be at any time. The current issues with Israel are rife for abuse to the point that I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't yet been used. And (2) if the law hasn't been used then WTF did we even consider signing it into power, let alone actually doing it? Something like this should never be done, but if done one would think it would only be in the face of an imminent and urgent need. Instead we seemed to have just casually signed unconstitutional executive tyranny into power 'just in case.' The only way we're ever going to reign in executive power is if one party or the other starts rolling back executive power while they're in power. But when people are in power they seem to convince themselves that it will always be like this, and so when it comes to power all they can say is 'more, more, more.' [1] - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...
      - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
        The legislature will never claw back power it gave to the executive unless overall federal power is seriously threatened IMO.
    - BurningFrog 2mo ago
      Just a guess, but maybe this is a result of the dysfunction in Congress. Someone has to get things done, and if Congress won't do it, maybe the President has to.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  >Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. This is a dying vestige of the greatest generation who passed it onto their boomer kids who blindly believed it despite evidince to the contrary. We're moving back toward a late 19th and early 20th century understanding of how government and laws work.
SwtCyber 2mo ago
The harder problem is designing remedies that make illegal government action actually expensive enough to discourage it, without also making officials afraid to make legitimate decisions.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  >officials afraid to make legitimate decisions Yeah, god forbid they drive right down the middle of the lane rather than drive right up to the line of what the public will tolerate. There is a direct causative line between government actors feeling like they can get away with unpopular things and the populist politics we've had brewing in this country for the past 20yr. The tea party, the Bernie bros the ron paul era libertarians, even MAGA, they were all ultimately captured by the establishment. The establishment wielding progressive (lowercase p) types would do well to understand that on some level you, the peddlers of government, must cater to the demands of the people, because if you don't eventually the pressure will build until a populist movement you cannot contain comes around and stomps you. And what that could look like is a serious power transfer away from the feds and toward the states. So if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do, this would be bad for you. Which is to say turn down the damn heat on the frog, this is all happening because you're going too fast.
  - pjc50 2mo ago
    Unclear why you seem to be blaming progressives for Trump.
  - rootusrootus 2mo ago
    > if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do That does not seem like a feature unique to progressives? Conservatives are trying explicitly to involve other states, they'd happily put us all under the thumb of a Evangelical theocracy if they had the power to do so.
    - cucumber3732842 2mo ago

mrandish 2mo ago

Agreed. There's little doubt the admin knew they'd lose in court before they did it but they also knew it would still hurt Anthropic and make an example showing what happens to "any vendor who tries to put restrictions on the DoW's use of their product."

ElProlactin 2mo ago

You're right: the current administration would find a way because they don't care what the law says. The law, to them, is a system to be hacked when necessary. Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. You can have a strong legal system by design (good oversight, various checks and balances, etc.) but in practice, any system is only as good as the most powerful people are decent and respectful of it. If you have someone in the most powerful position (the executive) who doesn't respect the law and who isn't willing to, with wisdom in his or her heart, exercise restraint with the understanding that protecting the integrity of the system is ultimately more important than getting your way, the law stands no chance.

bobthepanda 2mo ago
An interesting feature of Trump 2.0 is that his party has essentially entirely keeled over. Presidents are not historically all powerful within their own parties and the nature of the big tent systems means usually it is fairly difficult to get agreement on everything within a party without some compromise. Trump has managed to defang everybody else in the GOP.
- klik99 2mo ago
  This is true but every recent president has expanded powers, and had their party agree. Due to my age, I first noticed it with Bush then when Obama continued it, it felt weird to be fine with allowing more power in the executive branch when it’s someone you support, because that’ll add to the precedent for the next person who you don’t support. The presidency has come a long way since Washington and Trump 2.0 is a clear result / continuation of what’s been happening for as long as I’ve been paying attention.
  - somenameforme 2mo ago
    Exactly. People forget things like Obama signing a law into existence that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without trial or charge if you claim they're connected to terrorism. [1] As far as I know that law has not yet been used. However that leads to two issues. (1) It could be at any time. The current issues with Israel are rife for abuse to the point that I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't yet been used. And (2) if the law hasn't been used then WTF did we even consider signing it into power, let alone actually doing it? Something like this should never be done, but if done one would think it would only be in the face of an imminent and urgent need. Instead we seemed to have just casually signed unconstitutional executive tyranny into power 'just in case.' The only way we're ever going to reign in executive power is if one party or the other starts rolling back executive power while they're in power. But when people are in power they seem to convince themselves that it will always be like this, and so when it comes to power all they can say is 'more, more, more.' [1] - https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-in...
    - cucumber3732842 2mo ago
      The legislature will never claw back power it gave to the executive unless overall federal power is seriously threatened IMO.
  - BurningFrog 2mo ago
    Just a guess, but maybe this is a result of the dysfunction in Congress. Someone has to get things done, and if Congress won't do it, maybe the President has to.
cucumber3732842 2mo ago
>Many Americans take for granted the idea that the US is a "nation of laws" and that "rule of law" governs above all else. But the reality is this: there is no such thing as a perfect legal system. This is a dying vestige of the greatest generation who passed it onto their boomer kids who blindly believed it despite evidince to the contrary. We're moving back toward a late 19th and early 20th century understanding of how government and laws work.

SwtCyber 2mo ago

The harder problem is designing remedies that make illegal government action actually expensive enough to discourage it, without also making officials afraid to make legitimate decisions.

cucumber3732842 2mo ago
>officials afraid to make legitimate decisions Yeah, god forbid they drive right down the middle of the lane rather than drive right up to the line of what the public will tolerate. There is a direct causative line between government actors feeling like they can get away with unpopular things and the populist politics we've had brewing in this country for the past 20yr. The tea party, the Bernie bros the ron paul era libertarians, even MAGA, they were all ultimately captured by the establishment. The establishment wielding progressive (lowercase p) types would do well to understand that on some level you, the peddlers of government, must cater to the demands of the people, because if you don't eventually the pressure will build until a populist movement you cannot contain comes around and stomps you. And what that could look like is a serious power transfer away from the feds and toward the states. So if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do, this would be bad for you. Which is to say turn down the damn heat on the frog, this is all happening because you're going too fast.
- pjc50 2mo ago
  Unclear why you seem to be blaming progressives for Trump.
- rootusrootus 2mo ago
  > if your policy goals involve people in other states, which just about all progressives do That does not seem like a feature unique to progressives? Conservatives are trying explicitly to involve other states, they'd happily put us all under the thumb of a Evangelical theocracy if they had the power to do so.
  - cucumber3732842 2mo ago