5 ms·

The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side, failing to realize that their own side is equally respo

by eldude 13y ago

The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side, failing to realize that their own side is equally responsible. I see a lot of people declaring, "This is not the country it used to be," but it's in regards to both PRISM, civil forfeiture, and the Patriot Act; and Obamacare, FHA Loans, and Welfare. The true problem though is government, both altogether and the increase in the Federal government at the expense of local or State governments. Both the Democratic and Republican parties stand only to lose power by embracing either libertarian or state values. Consequently, a party that weakens itself with its own values, will always fail against a party that strengthens itself. Additionally, when the backlash from Bush's increase in government became too severe on the right, Obama stepped in to increase the size and reach of the government on the left. Until Democrats and Republicans acknowledge this, the political system will continue to use us against each other to enrich themselves and rob us of our liberties. This is the issue of our generation: the gross overreach of government institutionalized by politicians pitting opposing mass ideologies against each other while empowering themselves. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will ever surrender their party values for fear the other will abuse the opportunity to seize more power. We need a pro-state or libertarian party. I suspect a pro-state party would generate far greater support, likely because it is part of our historical/constitutional DNA. EDIT: Sorry for the seemingly tenuous relation to the article. The reason this relates is that all of the justification given by local law enforcement for violating our for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were Federal precedents and Executive Orders. In other words when the Federal government consistently violates federal (constitutional) laws, local governments are emboldened to do the same. Additionally, the size and power of the federal government itself emboldens it to violate its own (constitutional) accountabilities to the people.

apalmer 13y ago
I like some of your platform, but your post seems to be completely unrelated to the article. If anything this specific article details story of very widespread scale corruption among state and municipal government.
- gbhn 13y ago
  Yes. Stories like this are a root cause for why people often welcome federal law enforcement -- the centers of federal enforcement may be vulnerable to other forms of coercion, but they are outside the reach of whatever racket is currently corrupting local law enforcement.
argumentum 13y ago
I'm not sure how a "pro-state" party is going to solve the problems detailed in the article. It seemed that much of the abuse stemmed from state & local entities. We need a government that protects individual liberties at at all levels: from federal down to local.
rndmize 13y ago
I'm inclined to disagree. The problem the article illustrates has little to do with government, state, federal or local, so much as it has to do with incentive structures. I think that in this day and age, we need a new method for developing laws. Big software companies will pay bounties for bugs/security holes; why isn't there something like that for flaws/bad incentive structures/tax exploits in government?
- eldude 13y ago
  In a way, this is mostly in line with what I'm talking about in that the question we're posing together is whether the government must necessarily be smaller, or is merely buckling under the weight of an outmoded model and infrastructure that a technological solution can resolve via greater transparency and accountability. Perhaps a more ambitious goal would be a marriage of both. Fewer laws through greater empowerment, visibility and accountability enabled only through technology. In order to get there though, I think we have many issues we will need to solve before making matters worse, like who holds root access to the the government servers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- pyre 13y ago
  > why isn't there something like that for flaws/bad incentive structures/tax exploits in government? The problem with this would be that you would get many people trying to change laws that they don't like, and even groups of people "fighting" over trying to make a loosen/tighten restrictions in a law. For example, just imagine the tug-of-war between pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage groups over the statutes governing marriage. You would probably have to pursue a Wikipedia-like solution and 'lock' sections of law to this kind of input, which at least on its face, would start to make this approach more useless (because you would only be plugging holes in laws that few people cared about).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
The relation to the article isn't just tenuous, it directly contradicts the story. The civil forfeiture examples mentioned in the story are all examples of state and local governments abusing their powers. And historically, it's been state and local governments that most abused peoples' rights, whether it be their due process rights or their property rights.
- eldude 13y ago
  I would argue history disagrees with you that "state and local governments [...] most abused peoples' rights." See the American Revolution / British Empire, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, etc... etc... Also, sorry, my pro-state musings in my edit were not meant to characterize my anti-government criticism regarding the abuse of government power as pro-state. In retrospect, it was misguided for me to include that there.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about American history here.
    - dsjoerg 13y ago
      The history of other countries usefully expands the set of experience we can collectively call upon when trying to understand how institutions of power behave and interact. You said "state and local governments [...] most abused peoples' rights." Even though you meant in America, the more important question is in places like America. People can move away from abusive/totalitarian local governments.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        The examples have nothing in common other than that they involve countries. They're utterly ridiculous.
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
guelo 13y ago
The problem here is easy to fix without having to restructure our entire political system. Just remove the profit motive from policing.
- rmc 13y ago
  There are lots of countries without a "profit motive in policing". They have corrupt and bad policing too.
Steko 13y ago
"The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side," False, many people are willing to criticize both sides. If you look for zealots you will surely find them on both sides the same way it's always been. "Consequently, a party that weakens itself with its own values, will always fail against a party that strengthens itself. " This is not a problem. This is good because extreme, ideology driven agendas are generally suboptimal. "Additionally, when the backlash from Bush's increase in government became too severe on the right, Obama stepped in to increase the size and reach of the government on the left." This is, as they say, not the whole story. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/images/uploads/thp_image_uploads/charts/0803_govt_ratio_chart1.jpg http://www.hamiltonproject.org/images/uploads/thp_image_uplo... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/total-federal-spending-per-capita.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/t... "This is the issue of our generation: the gross overreach of government" There are many important issues of our generation, if we have to pick one I'm going with inequality and the destruction of public education.
MaysonL 13y ago
To lump a legitimate social insurance program like the Heritage Foundation's Romneycare (which many "conservatives" have taken to calling Obamacare) in with the excesses of civil forfeiture, PRISM, and the TSA is illegitimate. See, for refutation, Andrew Sullivan's "Since When Was Free-Loading A Conservative Value?" http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-fre...

by eldude 13y ago

apalmer 13y ago

I like some of your platform, but your post seems to be completely unrelated to the article. If anything this specific article details story of very widespread scale corruption among state and municipal government.

gbhn 13y ago
Yes. Stories like this are a root cause for why people often welcome federal law enforcement -- the centers of federal enforcement may be vulnerable to other forms of coercion, but they are outside the reach of whatever racket is currently corrupting local law enforcement.

argumentum 13y ago

I'm not sure how a "pro-state" party is going to solve the problems detailed in the article. It seemed that much of the abuse stemmed from state & local entities. We need a government that protects individual liberties at at all levels: from federal down to local.

rndmize 13y ago

I'm inclined to disagree. The problem the article illustrates has little to do with government, state, federal or local, so much as it has to do with incentive structures. I think that in this day and age, we need a new method for developing laws. Big software companies will pay bounties for bugs/security holes; why isn't there something like that for flaws/bad incentive structures/tax exploits in government?

eldude 13y ago
In a way, this is mostly in line with what I'm talking about in that the question we're posing together is whether the government must necessarily be smaller, or is merely buckling under the weight of an outmoded model and infrastructure that a technological solution can resolve via greater transparency and accountability. Perhaps a more ambitious goal would be a marriage of both. Fewer laws through greater empowerment, visibility and accountability enabled only through technology. In order to get there though, I think we have many issues we will need to solve before making matters worse, like who holds root access to the the government servers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
pyre 13y ago
> why isn't there something like that for flaws/bad incentive structures/tax exploits in government? The problem with this would be that you would get many people trying to change laws that they don't like, and even groups of people "fighting" over trying to make a loosen/tighten restrictions in a law. For example, just imagine the tug-of-war between pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage groups over the statutes governing marriage. You would probably have to pursue a Wikipedia-like solution and 'lock' sections of law to this kind of input, which at least on its face, would start to make this approach more useless (because you would only be plugging holes in laws that few people cared about).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

The relation to the article isn't just tenuous, it directly contradicts the story. The civil forfeiture examples mentioned in the story are all examples of state and local governments abusing their powers. And historically, it's been state and local governments that most abused peoples' rights, whether it be their due process rights or their property rights.

eldude 13y ago
I would argue history disagrees with you that "state and local governments [...] most abused peoples' rights." See the American Revolution / British Empire, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, etc... etc... Also, sorry, my pro-state musings in my edit were not meant to characterize my anti-government criticism regarding the abuse of government power as pro-state. In retrospect, it was misguided for me to include that there.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm talking about American history here.
  - dsjoerg 13y ago
    The history of other countries usefully expands the set of experience we can collectively call upon when trying to understand how institutions of power behave and interact. You said "state and local governments [...] most abused peoples' rights." Even though you meant in America, the more important question is in places like America. People can move away from abusive/totalitarian local governments.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The examples have nothing in common other than that they involve countries. They're utterly ridiculous.
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago

guelo 13y ago

The problem here is easy to fix without having to restructure our entire political system. Just remove the profit motive from policing.

rmc 13y ago
There are lots of countries without a "profit motive in policing". They have corrupt and bad policing too.

Steko 13y ago

"The sad thing is that people on both sides of the political spectrum complain only about the other side," False, many people are willing to criticize both sides. If you look for zealots you will surely find them on both sides the same way it's always been. "Consequently, a party that weakens itself with its own values, will always fail against a party that strengthens itself. " This is not a problem. This is good because extreme, ideology driven agendas are generally suboptimal. "Additionally, when the backlash from Bush's increase in government became too severe on the right, Obama stepped in to increase the size and reach of the government on the left." This is, as they say, not the whole story. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/images/uploads/thp_image_uploads/charts/0803_govt_ratio_chart1.jpg http://www.hamiltonproject.org/images/uploads/thp_image_uplo... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/total-federal-spending-per-capita.jpg http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/t... "This is the issue of our generation: the gross overreach of government" There are many important issues of our generation, if we have to pick one I'm going with inequality and the destruction of public education.

MaysonL 13y ago

To lump a legitimate social insurance program like the Heritage Foundation's Romneycare (which many "conservatives" have taken to calling Obamacare) in with the excesses of civil forfeiture, PRISM, and the TSA is illegitimate. See, for refutation, Andrew Sullivan's "Since When Was Free-Loading A Conservative Value?" http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-fre...