[UncleMeat]

Because this isn't about efficiency.

The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government. They haven't been especially subtle about it in their writing. The ideal outcome is not the same government outcomes but at 70% of the cost. The ideal outcome is the collapse of the federal bureaucracy so that the lords of capital can scoop things up and create their little kingdoms.

[reaperducer]

Because this isn't about efficiency.

Last weekend the Washington Post published some internal DOGE memos showing this is absolutely true. What's happening has nothing to do with efficiency. It's all about ideology.

[dan_quixote]

Got a link handy? I'm not finding it so far.

[throwaway491521]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2025/dog...

[gruez]

The original claim was "these actions are trying to destroy the government", but the article only seemingly says they're trying to destroy DEI?

[ThePowerOfDirge]

But DEI is what made JD Vance who he is today. To quote an article: "The truth is, if it was not for the Yellow Ribbon Program I would not be going to law school."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/19/ask-politifac...

Why are they trying to destroy it? Are they saying that they do not want more DEI, JD Vance-type people, that one is enough?

[michpoch]

> To quote an article: "The truth is, if it was not for the Yellow Ribbon Program I would not be going to law school."

That's not DEI. This program is about helping ex-military to find new employment.

DEI is about "we do not have enough racial / gender diversity at this company / office / organisation / employment level".

[Onawa]

Phase 2 consists of placing on leave employees in non-DEI roles — who DOGE determines are somehow tied to DEI — as well as other employees working at offices whose existence is mandated by law.

[reaperman]

https://archive.is/7FMD9

[kamaal]

>>What's happening has nothing to do with efficiency.

In my experience, efficient is rarely, if ever cheap.

[outside1234]

The ideal outcome is that government fails, then they can point at the failing government and ask, why do we want to pay for something that is failing.

[y33t]

Related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[Aloisius]

This was a reckless plan.

If you want people to get onboard with spending cuts, you should raise taxes high enough to actually pay for all the spending so taxpayers feel the consequences of it.

Reducing revenues and letting people run up the credit card for decades instead, as an intentional strategy, was beyond irresponsible.

[avidiax]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski#The_Two_Santa_Cl...

They've known for a long time that they can't cut spending. It will be terribly unpopular. So they cut taxes (especially on the rich) which keeps tax pressure on everyone else, but gets them wealthy donors.

Then the opposition has three choices: play chicken with the national debt, cut spending, or raise taxes. Usually raising the national debt is the easiest option.

[zdw]

This - it's basically meme of the guy shooting the person behind him in the chair and then being incredulous.

[nozzlegear]

What's their plan after that though? Privatization, I guess?

[saulpw]

Ever read Snowcrash?

[danielodievich]

Yeah, their vision is us living in burbclaves of New South Africa, Mr Lee's Hong Kong and Reverend Wayne's Pearly Gates and the bankrupt US Government with trillion dollar notes not to be used as toilet paper because it is illegal and clogs the plumbing.

[nozzlegear]

I haven't, not yet anyway. I did read Termination Shock by the same author, though. I loved it, and promptly added Snowcrash to my TBR list.

[marviel]

so glad someone else sees this.

[wahnfrieden]

Network states per Yarvin. Each ruled by a corporation with CEO. With a caste system for cheap labor vs "citizens"

[themagician]

When you are Elon, or Trump, or even a moderately succesful business… all the government does (or at least what you perceive) is tell you no. You can't dump that here, you can't build that there, you can't fire that person for that reason, you can't do that without a permit, etc.. They just want to clear all the roadblocks out of the way for their PERSONAL gains.

Get rid of the government and you can do whatever you want. That is what they want. These are people who feel they have "won" the game of capitalism, and were still told, "No." That greatly upset them. How can a winner be told they can't do something?

[hattmall]

There's thousands of homeless and underhoused people all over the US for the same exact reasons so you don't have to be rich to feel the effects of government telling you no. Didn't used to be that way at all. My grandfather built his own house ~70 years ago with his brother from trees they cut down on the property and set it on blocks. He lived in for 60+ years and it's still standing. It's a house I could buy and live in right now. But I can't just build a much better house with modern materials and live in it without an egregious amount of site work.

It's so dumb it's gotten to the point that there is intense competition for the most rundown house that's already utility connected so you can tear it down and replace it piece by piece to avoid all the ridiculous new rules. It's only feasible to build either million dollar+ homes or jank-station multi-families where you hear your neighbors toilets flush.

[ashoeafoot]

All the body does is limit cell growth for cells with potential! What has the body ever done for thee?

[hattmall]

There's thousands of homeless and underhoused people all over the US for the same exact reasons so you don't have to be rich to feel the effects of government telling you no.

[watwut]

Somehow countries with bigger governmental social systems have less homelessness.

You know, goverment said no to the robosigning of fraudulent evictions, no to the predatory loans ...

[polski-g]

There was a new EO recently that required all new hires to be approved by DOGE. So the goal would be to bring back something like the CSC had (which was essentially IQ filters for a job). Then the per employee productivity would increase in the government.

Government employees are unbelievably unimpressive, and it started in 1978 with the abolition of the CSC.

[jrs235]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no

[evan_]

They don't care, they'll be fine.

[mindcrime]

> The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government.

It's worse than that. They're also incompetent.

Look, I'm a radical anarcho-capitalist / libertarian / voluntaryist myself. I'm fine with the idea of "destroying the government" in general. BUT, even I would say that there's a right way to go about it, and that that involves dismantling things slowly and incrementally, identifying replacements (where available) for government services that are being wound down BEFORE winding them down, minimizing the harm done, taking "collateral damage" into consideration etc. These people are doing the equivalent of "destroying the government" by just randomly lobbing hand grenades all over the place, with no knowledge, consideration, or concern, for the outcomes.

[UncleMeat]

Well, then get to resisting. Like it or not, people with your ideology aren't going to be distinguished from the people that burned the government to the ground, destroyed people's lives, and sold the ashes to the richest men on the planet.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

It is a fascinating comment. Surely, you recognize things are hardly black and white. Like it or not, the guy has an actual popular mandate to do just that. If you accept that premise, the undistinguishing is already happening on both sides of the US' political spectrum.

[jrs235]

Less than 50% of voters voted for him and what was total voter turn out? 60%? So maybe a 1/3 of eligible voters voted for him. A plurality does not equate to a mandate.

[Izkata]

By that logic, no president is ever allowed to do anything - because IIRC that turnout is slightly higher than the historical average.

[ty6853]

The populace is always arguing about how I have to pay up for taxes for muh roads and schools whether I want them or not, or else go in a tiny cage.

Now they have to eat their crow of what it's like to legitimize the violence of a republic.

It may not be right, and I also disagree with our governance, but by god the schadenfreude is off the chart.

I hope the 2/3 learn something from this.

[trog]

I hope the 1/3 learn something from this

[UncleMeat]

Many things are not black and white.

But if the outcome is that the existing federal system collapses and we have a collection of fiefdoms run by CEO-kings, endless nuance won't be the appropriate response.

If Trump has a popular mandate to illegally dismantle the government, then what was Biden's popular mandate? Why were such comparatively small things like student loan forgiveness seen as tyrannical? Where was the endless supply of pundits saying "well that's the mandate" then?

[kelseyfrog]

You have to understand that arguing from "mandate" is a nice way of saying, "Please stop talking." Its purpose is to end the conversation, not to engage in further discussion.

[watwut]

Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate" for them. We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything.

So, no. This is just another asymetric rule designed to enable.

Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are. Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Except that when democrats are in power, we don't hear "they have mandate"

We don't hear it from democrats now either. What is your point? That each side uses the best argument that supports their position and they decide on the argument after they decide what their expected result is? We all know this and it has been unfortunate part of the discourse for decades at the very least.

<< We see obstruction at every level and a lot of vitriol. It is only when conservatives are destroying it becomes mandate for anything.

Could you elaborate on this point a little? I had a longer initial reaction to it, but I realized that the phrasing can be interpreted in several ways.

I will say this just to give you an idea of my initial read: the vitriol( from republican electorate ) was the cause of the mandate ( to clamp down on bureaucracy ). Now, said clamping generates its own vitriol ( and seemingly some vitriol as well ). Which vitriol you want to focus on?

<< Also, on cultural level, we are supposed to not consider all Republicans assholes, but if they mandated this, they are.

Why.. do I care about it at all?

Asshole designation is largely meaningless to me. I will push that point further, because I worry that I might be misunderstood on this point.

You may find that almost the entirety of the situation we find ourselves is a result of people 'just being nice' and trying not ruffle feathers. There was rather ample time to do some of the incremental changes some recommended here, but no one wanted to be an asshole. We are way past the point, where that label would even register ( not even have and impact; register ). Edit: I will separately note that on this forum, I noted years ago that if those issues are not addressed, we will find ourselves having to make rather unhappy choices.

I am pointing it out for one reason some may be misunderstanding some very basic reality. I will offer one more example of this weird blindness to zeitgeist.

Did you notice how Trump was able to simply shrug off the felon label? Have you considered the why behind it?

<< Or when Canadiens boo American anthem, it is all "American people are not responsible for their leadership".

Again.. why does it matter to me? They can boo all they want.

[soco]

Being okay or ignoring such a label indicates a certain level of understanding it and accepting it. Trump is totally fine with being against the law because he is in a position of privilege - he can afford it. He doesn't care about those laws either, so basically is totally fine with being an antisocial - because a society codifies its principles in the laws it created. Now if another person is okay with being called an asshole, again it's because they are okay with being mean to others, to disrespect norms and generally other persons, out of a feeling of personal or group superiority and expected impunity - an impunity they see again and again in their role models. So while you cannot make the asshole care about it, the way you truthfully explained, it's important for the less-assholes to point this out to each other. Because the "others" are a group as well, even though nowadays it looks chaotic and actually just less visible in general. Just to be clear, I don't think anybody expects assholes fixing stuff for the rest, it's for the moment nothing more than flag waving. And also I agree that the system is seemingly built to be abused by assholes, something not even the founding fathers have considered. But what happened, happened, and the question is, what now?

[cthalupa]

Trump didn't even get half the popular vote. That's not a mandate.

[rofrol]

@cthalupa

> Trump didn't even get half the popular vote. That's not a mandate.

I think you confuse USA with some other country. Read about electoral votes.

[cthalupa]

I didn't say he wasn't elected. I said he didn't have a mandate.

If he did not secure even half of the popular vote then it is obvious that the median voter does not align with his views.

[jrs235]

Mandates would come from popularity, not from weighted numbers.

[unclebucknasty]

>I'm fine with the idea of "destroying the government" in general. BUT, even I would say that there's a right way to go about it...

Earnest question: Does the second sentence here cause you to reflect on the first, because:

>minimizing the harm done, taking "collateral damage" into consideration...

acknowledges that the government is performing important functions on which people rely.

I know there's an argument that the private sector could instead provide some of these, but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies?

[drdaeman]

> but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies?

I believe the idea is that you can have multiple companies for a given purpose and switch between them (or form your own) depending on what you think works best for you and your community. You cannot have multiple governments - if the one elected on an piece of land you happen to live on does not act in your interests, you're pretty much SOL at least until the next election cycle (if it's a democracy) or the next coup (if it's not).

The obligatory caveat is that - of course - this does not work in practice. At the very least, it requires a perfect free and fair market which means it needs us all to be well-informed rational actors. And there are probably more requirements than just this.

[ineedasername]

The problem with this line of thinking is in people frequently ignore their own interests or just shrug their shoulders and "I got mine" in some way: The absolute easiest example that comes to mind is roads. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people complain about tax on gasoline and how they don't even use the majors roads and highways that much. Mention that nearly every single thing that keeps them alive will in some way require roads to exist and they'll move the goal posts to "I ready pay other taxes" or "I've already paid plenty" or less reasonably "fine let all this go away then because we got along fine 200 years ago without it".

With other things, it's just about impossible to convey to someone with this sort of mindset anything much less direct like the costs of having beauracracies creating and enforcing regulating building codes or workplace standards, and even those are easier to grasp than many other services

[drdaeman]

Exactly - no disagreement here. But if you understand it and I understand it, can we dream of a day everyone will? :-)

In the meanwhile, I support bureaucracies. Even if the long-term goal is to get rid of them, I currently believe that we desperately need those training wheels for the time being, and trying to dismantle them until we know how to do well without is irresponsible and dangerous.

[cgcrob]

It doesn’t work in practice. So needs regulators or you end up with cartels. And for regulators you need a government.

We got where we got because this already failed.

[drdaeman]

That's what I've said, yes. It does not.

Companies tend to deceive customers, as the incentives are frequently aren't aligned, so "voting with a wallet" is not functioning as well as it should. And profit-seeking leads to market consolidation, which, at least past some threshold is a net negative on society and turns into oligopoly.

A vision of a society without a government is utopic. It requires drastically different mindset and understanding of the side effects and unintended outcomes from every living person. Yet, I cannot help but naively like the idea of such society (which is entirely subjective thing), and so I wish we all could be smarter and knowledgeable, stop fighting for resources, and that some distant day whatever becomes of us may live in a world where cartels won't form because everyone understands how that's not really in anyone's interest (paradoxically, I believe that's not even good for the cartel itself in the long term - power and wealth are also a deadly curse).

[unclebucknasty]

I did not expect that conclusion in the last paragraph.

It occurred to me that making a point of the type, "here's what I believe is best or here's what I prefer, but I understand that the current reality doesn't accommodate it" represents a level of non-binary nuance and maturity that is exceedingly rare these days. We'd all do well to emulate it.

[fallingknife]

You can think that someone doesn't deserve the benefit they get from the government but also think it's unfair to impose additional hardship by cutting it off suddenly.

> You cannot have multiple governments

I have 4. City, county, state, and federal.

[jcranmer]

For most states, there's only two governments--the city and county governments of most states are organs of the state governments and only have such authority as the state unilaterally deigns to let them have.

As for the distinction between state and federal, that's essentially the exception that proves the rule. The reason you cannot have multiple governments is because you end up with a situation of contested authority, and a brief look at US history (and I suspect every other federal system in the world, though I don't have particular knowledge for others) shows a litany of debates over whether state or federal government has primacy in a given jurisdiction. It's only barely tolerable by the fact that, even if the grant of authority to the different governments is unclear, at least the authority to decide who has authority is unquestioned.

[germinalphrase]

The history of private fire departments is a solid lesson in the pitfalls of this perspective.

[jrs235]

>acknowledges that the government is performing important functions on which people rely.

>I know there's an argument that the private sector could instead provide some of these, but that causes me to consider whether such critical services should be in the hands of for-profit companies?

I think decentralizing and delegating some of those services to be closer to the people (to state governments) has merit. I agree with the OP that to shift to in that direction there's a right way and a wrong way to do that transition. In today's immediate self gratification culture though you'll get what we're getting. Patience is a virtue we were all born without. It takes displince and strong values to stick with it.

[soco]

Oh but they can be just fine, you only need to look outside the States to see it working. They're not perfect either, don't start me on it, but I can see exactly that idea working in Switzerland: the state making the rules for the private providers _and_enforcing_ them. It might be against "muh freedom to rip everybody off" but I personally refuse to call that "freedom".

[Tainnor]

OTOH, some important things in Switzerland are still state-owned, like the railways or the post.

Some people treat Switzerland like some libertarian paradise, but in reality, while Switzerland does tend to be more economically liberal than many of its neighbours, it's usually pretty pragmatic and not committed to some ideology.

[soco]

True, I was thinking rather about the health insurance system as a working example of private companies being controlled by state-defined rules.

[fallingknife]

The problem is that it wouldn't get done. To do it that way you would need the cooperation of the bureaucracy and they are just not going to cooperate here. And who can blame them? I wouldn't do a good job if my bosses asked me to do an analysis of how to cut my job. The conclusion would be "the collateral damage would be catastrophic." I think that's why large corporate layoffs are always a shitshow too.

[vharuck]

What about early retirement for unnecessary bureaucrats? You give them their most recent salary and benefits until they're 65 or would've been eligible for retirement, then handle their retirement plans as though they'd been working all that time. So that's fewer bureaucrats, less resistance to the change, more people moving to the "more productive" private sector, and the money still flows to communities via federal wages.

This kind of plan would be crazy for a private company that needs to fight to survive each quarter, but it works for governments who should be planning decades ahead.

[throwawayq3423]

So, like terrorists.

[kevin_thibedeau]

More like National Socialists.

[astrange]

They believed in government. It's more like Italy.

[electrondood]

At least it's an ethos.

[genewitch]

> that involves dismantling things slowly and incrementally

Yeah? been waiting, consciously, for over 35 years and all we managed to do is give billions to industries for no return for citizens, tenfold our debt, potentially bankrupt Medicare, and so on.

Democrats have been in power about equally (20 vs 14 years but just president isn't enough to be "in power"); so neither side is interested in fixing this country for the people instead of themselves.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

This. In fact, since the system is built for gridlock, both parties happily pretend to care about given's electorate red meat, while blaming the other party for failing to do X. It is a perfect scenario for an elected official: do nothing -- the hardest thing to do in politics.

[watwut]

The lock is VERY one sided. Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas.

The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate.

It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< The lock is VERY one sided.

Hmm. Is it though? You are making rather broad statement here. Would you be willing to offer an example supporting that statement?

<< Democrats were willing to work across the aisle and even adopted republican ideas.

'Were'? It is a real question, but the spirit is the same as above. Can you offer an example you have in your mind. I suspect I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume too much.

<< The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides. Republicans refused to cooperate.

Same as above.

<< It is assymetric and the knee jerk tendency to both side everything just enable it.

No. This is pure silliness and I am frankly tired of hearing this point so I will just call it out.

I like to see things as they are. If things happen to work in a way that I happen to not like, then I do not like those things, but it does not mean said those things are invalid, simply because it was a 'kneejerk' reaction to it.

And even trying to cast it as kneejerk is amazingly inaccurate. This resentment has been building for a long time now ( does anyone even remember Vance's CNN commentary that basically said 'can you hear us now?' ), which kinda sucks for the political class as they will need to figure out a different model ( and it seems they may have already ) to bamboozle the population.

I am happy to discuss further, but you need to give me a little more.

[igorkraw]

While I do think gp should give you an example, I also invite you to provide a counter example, otherwise both of you are just stating your vibes.

If you are _actually_ willing to discuss, you can't just demand the other side to give, you can also set the standard by giving.

[watwut]

Obama was literally that. And republicans refused to do any cooperation at all and punished own republicans for any compromises. Obama eventually understood it well into his period.

Trying to both sides here is just lie. And yes, knee jerk complain is about people saying 'both sides' because they feel like they have to, not because both sides would be the same.

[Applejinx]

Then it's worth asking: surely no matter what your perspective is, it's possible to come up with intelligent and capable malefactors who'll further your power and that of your side?

No matter who you consider to be malefactors. Let's say we call ancaps malefactors, and we're talking about the reformation of society. Surely it's possible to find capable people who will set that in motion and lock it in so it can't be avoided? There must be so many people able to plan this out. You might be one of those people!

And yet, how come we're looking at a pile of nonsense people, hurling grenades and being catastrophically useless in their own rights, across the board?

Do you consider them incompetent, when the claim is they'll make everything great and you hope they'll serve your interests?

Or do you consider that they're doing exactly what they are meant to do, but they're meant to be saboteurs and the damage IS not only the point but the only real plan?

In that case, they might not even be in control of what they think they're intending, but they've been selected to do exactly what they're doing. Some of the bigger ones seem to be carrying on like Bond villains, presumably because they enjoy that, but even they are poised to do catastrophic damage to what they're supposed to 'rule'.

So do they even expect to rule anything, or are they simply trying to break everything before fleeing the ruins? They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate.

That might be the only purpose.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< They're not acting like they're trying to build power, it's something else. Even Trump's bluster is not really building power in any way, it's only undermining American hegemony at a staggering rate.

That is arguable, but let us assume it is true for the sake of the argument. If that is true, would you agree that US hegemony seriously waned over the course of at least 4 administrations before Trump?

[jrm4]

You're probably part of the problem; folks like yourself are nearly universally ignorant of many Chesterton's fences.

[geoelectric]

Unless they radically edited what they said after you replied, I’d say the approach they favor necessarily includes understanding the fence. It’s a bit rude to just lump them in with “folks like themselves” as an ad hom.

Even as a left lib who thinks the primary purpose of a government should be to pool money into public good, I doubt all the fences that are up are there for good reasons anymore. Questioning them in a careful and rational manner is healthy, and I wish it were done more. Wanton destruction like we’re seeing now isn’t.

I think that’s in line with what your parent comment was saying too. They might be more surprised than I would be as to how many fences are justified, but it sounds like they believe it’s important to check.

[jrm4]

I've worked in government and large institutions, and frequently deal with people who think like this.

Let's just say I'm perfectly comfortable with the ad hominem.

Literally 100% of the people I've encountered with this attitude either soften it once they're actually in, or they come in and break things.

Any time someone comes in with a "clean house" attitude," I know I have to get ready because they nearly universally have no clue of what they're talking about.

[intended]

Pardon my French. - You need to be sharing a fuck ton of examples.

People make sense of things in many ways. One of the most fundamental are stories.

Share every example or story you can, or your friends can. This is one of the things conspicuously absent on HN, which is surprising since there should be many people with personal experience dealing with governments or complex systems.

It may seem simple, but they matter.

[jrm4]

Right, I mean the fundamental problem here is that the sort of person who actually does this sort of real work -- much more than I do -- doesn't have time to screw around on here. :)

[geoelectric]

I respect your experience, but your message added literally nothing to the conversation besides “you probably suck because people like you generally do.” It was nothing but a personal attack.

That’s considerably harder to respect, and it put me in the position of feeling like I needed to defend the parent of your comment.

Being more direct, since you seem to value that: consider keeping that sort of thing to yourself unless it has an actual constructive point beyond insulting the person to whom you’re responding. However true it might be per your subjective experience, posting it here only makes you look bad.

If nothing else, choosing a straw man of not understanding Chesterton’s Fence, when that was already directly contradicted by the parent comment, comes off as you being the ignorant one.

You may be comfortable with the ad hom, but maybe you shouldn’t be so comfortable with that.

[jrm4]

Nah. This place is a bit of an echo chamber; as I said above -- it is unfortunate but the people who do (much more than I) this good real work of keeping stupid overdoers like this away don't have time to, e.g. post in places like this.

[zamadatix]

Identifying what the collateral damage would be, planning to minimize harm done, and identifying replacements for the functionality prior to replacement reads to me like an exact application of the principles recommended by Chesterton's fence rather than apparent ignorance of the concepts https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/:

> There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

If you still see it so differently I'd like to better understand some more of the reasoning why.

[jrm4]

All of your theory sounds good.

I've NEVER ever ever seen anyone who comes in with this attitude do it effectively in practice. They always either soften greatly or screw things up.

[zamadatix]

I can't take any credit for theory as the above is just what Chesterton's Fence story is advising with nothing added.

I'm not particularly a DOGE fan myself but I've seen many folks like the above able to do great amounts of "cleanup" in organizations of 100k+ employees without much broken glass. Plenty who don't as well and create a mess of course... but those are not usually the ones who introduce themselves by way of being concerned about the effects and rate of change. People absolutely certain they know how something will go without doubt before even getting involved are usually the biggest problems, though they aren't wrong 100% of the time either.

Just as not every person who is hesitant to remove things is just a curmudgeon, freeloader, fake worker, lazy, or whatever else people like to characterize them as it's also true not every person who wants to remove cruft is ignorant, clueless, wreckless, royally screws things up, and so on. In both cases success is more tied with those focusing on the details, review, and planning of the execution rather than feelings on first thought.

[WesolyKubeczek]

Is the US going the way the aftermath of which is described in Neuromancer, or is it going to be Snow Crash, complete with visas to every city state, and the "US" part that's left deluded that they are in control?

[Hikikomori]

It's snow crash, they're calling it network states. Tech billionaires want to be CEO kings of their own mini states, their goal is to destroy the federal government. Project 2025 is based on ideas (in particula, RAGE, retire all government employees) from Curtis Yarvin, good friend of Peter Theil and JD Vance.

https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-plot-against-americ...

https://youtu.be/5RpPTRcz1no

[Applejinx]

Accurately observed, but I think they're foolish and are only being used by a particular nation-state with a grudge against the US. Their alliances are pretty obvious, but an empire trying to reclaim its empire does not keep its promises to tech barons.

The Project 2025 people are probably sincere, but wildly impractical. Their impracticality has been indulged by a global adversary which simply intends to destroy the United States on every possible level. There's no reason the tech barons will be given mini states. Why would that happen?

[fzeroracer]

That's my take too. The tech barons are all remarkably stupid and think that if they destroy the federal government they'll be able to swoop in and take everything, but the end result is 50 individual governments that stop paying dues to the feds, many of which are going to be far more hostile to said tech barons.

They're not even smart enough to properly pay off and maintain the military so they could try and enforce the oligarchy.

[mrguyorama]

The best part is this is trivially obvious to anyone who knows their US history. The articles of confederation were torn up and replaced with a strong federal government that could adapt over time in part because the "federated states" system resulted in a bunch of petty tyrant Governors who completely ignored and neglected their federal obligations, ran their states like fiefdoms, and consistently made things shitty for everyone out of their pettiness.

Lots of people insist that the US should be a loose federation of states that are mostly left to themselves, basically like a less bureaucratic Europe, but that's stupid, because if that model worked, the constitution would not exist

[Hikikomori]

They have money, there might be enough corruption in some states to allow them to accomplish this, or since they're in power they could sell federal land?

Not sure if anything but their own incompetence can stop them now, if not that a military coup might happen when trump cracks down on protests with soldiers, like he wanted last time he was president.

[electrondood]

This is the most sensible take I have seen online in months.

[disqard]

Yeah, they all are (immensely rich (for now)) useful idiots.

Their greed is being leveraged to have them dismantle their own nation -- no need for military action.

What happens afterward might surprise these rich plutocrats, but I personally won't be surprised by it.

[xnx]

It feels like they really want to make use of those expensive bunkers.

[mrguyorama]

That's actually the problem. These tech shitlords KNOW there's a chance everything is destroyed in a way that doesn't leave them gods. But they place that chance at like 30%. They're degenerate gamblers basically, betting it all on red.

[throwawayq3423]

> Curtis Yarvin

So great the worst people alive are now in complete control of everything.

[gs17]

> This wasn't just theoretical—there were actual attempts to implement these ideas, like the Peter Thiel-backed “network state" project called Praxis in Greenland.

Huh.

[Hikikomori]

Guess where Trump wanting Greenland comes from.

[rbetts]

Lately, I feel like I'm living in the William Gibson "Bridge" trilogy meets Douglas Adam's Zaphod Beeblebrox timeline.

[duskwuff]

> Douglas Adam's Zaphod Beeblebrox timeline

At least the galactic government had the good sense to make the President of the Galaxy a figurehead. (Or, uh, figureheads?)

[snailmailstare]

I spent a long time trying to figure out who he could have been comparing himself to every time he was in the media for decades, until I was watching the Simpsons and realized Krusty had always been there but was no longer the worlds most beloved clown.

[benatkin]

Ketamine is analogous to the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster? https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-don-lemon-small-am...

[kevin_thibedeau]

And yet he is allowed to have TS by the idiots running the DoD.

[Joel_Mckay]

The film describes a "Despotism" (1946) cycle, and ultimate conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdVB-R6Duso

Keep in mind people voted for this knowing the plan, but this book documents human behavior in general politics under a new ruler:

"The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" (Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith)

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po...

Removing political guardrails and community due-process is what is happening.

A king and his fool is unsustainable, thus... people with brains and money will simply start to vote with their feet and leave while they are able. Have a great day =3

[kibwen]

> people with brains and money will simply start to vote with their feet and leave while they are able

That worked in 1935. It doesn't work in 2025, in a world with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. We're all stuck on this planet together now; there's no escaping from a US with a mad king at the helm.

[Joel_Mckay]

"nuclear-tipped ICBMs"

Not unless someone is suicidal, the ultimate glass-cannon is practically only an economic-weapon designed to bankrupt anyone foolish enough to compete in such programs.

Besides, there are rumors of far worse things now like geriatric Fox media. lol =3

[slg]

>Not unless someone is suicidal

There are plenty of examples of rulers suddenly becoming suicidal once the walls start closing in on them.

[Joel_Mckay]

Narcissists love themselves more than anyone else, and would never deny the world of their joy in collateral misery. lol =3

"Don't Be a Sucker" (1947)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk

[euroderf]

> The ideal outcome is the collapse of the federal bureaucracy so that the lords of capital can scoop things up and create their little kingdoms.

This is, of course, the model for Russian oligarchs.

[SigmundA]

>Because this isn't about efficiency.

Being alive and happy is not effcient.

[andsoitis]

> The people radicalized to these actions are trying to destroy the government.

The federal government, right? They are in favor of state and local government, but object to federal, which they assert reduces the ability for states to have different rules and regulations that can drive competition amongst different legal frameworks.

[atombender]

This seems unclear. For example, the Department of Transportation just told NY they have to shut down the new (and apparently relatively successful) congestion pricing [1] in NYC. (As with some other things being torn down by the administration, apparently the rules say the government cannot do this.)

So it appears, at least, that the administration doesn't actually respect states' rights and is looking to take over everything.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nyc-congestion-pricing-...

[ty6853]

I'd be interested in understanding the property rights of the roads they were taxing. Were they taxing highways that had some covenants or contract ensuring toll free passage? I'm unfamiliar with the contract made for federally matched roads but it wouldn't surprise me if there's an agreement you can't just turn it into a toll road by calling it a new tax.

[andsoitis]

“ In a letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that the federal government has jurisdiction over highways leading to Manhattan and that the additional tolls posed an unfair burden for motorists outside the city.”

However that seems like a dubious claim (Google results report the highways around Manhattan are operated by the state of NY, however New Jersey is adjacent).

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-administration-te...

[ty6853]

I wonder if they could get around that by making the prices balance to zero? Like charge fees to people during congestion times and pay those fees outdistributed equally amongst those who enter during non congestion.

Then there would be no net revenue/toll. The optics would also be far better than green washing a net toll on people driving in from outside the city/state.

[maxerickson]

Charging people from outside the area so that they are less likely to come in a personal vehicle is one of the direct goals of congestion pricing. It isn't an environmental program, it's a traffic management program and isn't greenwashing anything.

[cardamomo]

They seem to be in favor of state and local governments only so far as those governments agree with them.

[andsoitis]

Yes, and they have threatened action against those they disagree with. We’ll see if they can get away with it, but something to resist very strongly.

[andsoitis]

What is harder to fight against, however, is when they make deals with corrupt officials (looking at you democratic NYC Mayor, Mr Adams) to get what they want: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80yrglnn79o

[kevin_thibedeau]

The world's first volunteer slave.

[cardamomo]

Let's not call a Black mayor of a major city a slave.

[cbsmith]

> They are in favor of state and local government, but object to federal, which they assert reduces the ability for states to have different rules and regulations that can drive competition amongst different legal frameworks.

As demonstrated by efforts to prevent state and local governments from acting independently...

[andsoitis]

> As demonstrated by efforts to prevent state and local governments from acting independently...

Ironically tempering states is an important function of the federal government (eg civil rights, environmental protections, etc).

If the federal government is used to force states to make things worse, that is something to resist very strongly.

[cbsmith]

> Ironically tempering states is an important function of the federal government (eg civil rights, environmental protections, etc).

Right, like shutting down congestion pricing plans. ;-)

[comfysocks]

State government? You mean states in the bible belt, right? Because they aren’t in favor of liberal coastal state government.

[andsoitis]

You want to distinguish between favoring federalism VS favoring the policies/culture/etc. of specific states.

So yeah; they are in favor of more state government in lieu of federal, even though they hate certain states’ policies. I think that’s obvious. Now, the question is whether or not they will succeed in handicapping states’ autonomy when they disagree with things. My take is they will try (and have tried), but it isn’t a foregone conclusion that they will succeed. There’s soft power and there’s violence, and I’m optimistic that it will be more the former.

[ceejayoz]

> So yeah; they are in favor of more state government in lieu of federal, even though they hate certain states’ policies.

They just nixed NYC’s congestion fee. They are gonna do plenty of meddling.

[_DeadFred_]

More feudalism less federalism.

[imbusy111]

I thought this was already settled during the American Civil War, yet we're back at it again.

[andsoitis]

Apparently not!

An opposite question is interesting: why not abolish state governments and only have the federal government? I haven’t thought about it deeply so don’t have a strong sense that it would be better than the status quo, though I suspect it might.

[fallingknife]

Centralization and size comes with inefficiency and slow decision making. It also comes with economies of scale. For something like the Medicare, the economy of scale dominates and it makes much more sense to be federal. When it comes to running schools, there really isn't much economy of scale so it makes much more sense to run it locally.

[gottorf]

Economies (and diseconomies) of scale exist, of course, but aren't central to what is the responsibility of the federal government and what is the responsibility of the state governments. That, of course, is laid out rather plainly in the founding legal document of the country.

[int_19h]

The more people are ruled by a single government that is ostensibly a representative democracy, the less representative said democracy actually is. This should be rather evident - you can't grow parliament size indefinitely if you want it to continue functioning as a deliberative chamber, which in turn means that every parliamentarian represents more and more people, which in practice means that they don't represent them well.

[ty6853]

The Civil War settled that the feds could rule over the explicitly authorized powers of the federal government. In the 30s the feds reneged and decided blatantly unconstitutional stuff like the (later passed) Civil rights act could hold if they just call everything interstate commerce.

When the US falls apart this will be a likely central focus .

[andrekandre]

how was the civil rights act not constitutional?

[ty6853]

CRA under the 1875 version was found unconstitutional per the Civil Rights Cases of the Supreme court [0].

In the 1930s the executive threatened to pack the supreme court and many analogous private/intrastate commerce regulations were allowed federally by this bastardization of 'interstate commerce' by the court. Then they repassed the CRA with yet again stuff found unconstitutional, using their new version of 'interstate commerce' (everything).

The CRA objectively has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme court, and I believe it may be again under the latest generation of the court.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases

[andrekandre]

thank you for the reply

so, probably restating what you said, if someone wanted to pass something like that, a constitutional amendment is the better way since relying on interstate commerce clause is shaky ground... is that right interpretation?

[pstuart]

They to have just enough government for them to extract as much wealth as possible. States rights is about them doing whatever they want without interference.

The US had a civil war that its defenders describe as being about "states' rights", with the most important right of all being the ability to literally own other people as property.

Make America Great Again is a about returning to those glory days.

[andsoitis]

> the ability to literally own other people as property. Make America Great Again is a about returning to those glory days.

Are you suggesting they want to allow states to reinstate slavery? That sounds very conspiratorial.

[ceejayoz]

Slavery was never actually banned. The 13th Amendment leaves a Death Star sized loophole.

> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[gottorf]

I do not find it strange or otherwise see it as a loophole that duly convicted prisoners pay some of their debt to society by being forced to do labor.

[jononor]

It at least hinges on what people are convicted of being things that "deserve" slavery. Not all agree that possession of drugs for personal use meets that. Or performing or having an abortion. What if the government turns full Russia and makes political dissent illegal? Or championing/practicing "non traditional family values" like LGBT? There is also a moral hazard in being able to earn money on prison labor, as it incentives putting people in prison.

[Ferret7446]

The vast majority of slavery historically is this. While I can't say I disagree with you, it's also awkward because you must then conclude that the vast majority of slavery historically was "okay"/"justified". Clearly some subjectivity and subtlety is needed.

[ceejayoz]

Sure, until you get “duly convicted” of a minor crime like speeding or having a joint and sent to the labor camps.

[pstuart]

> Are you suggesting they want to allow states to reinstate slavery?

Not as an immediate goal, but they would be ok with it.

> That sounds very conspiratorial

On my part? I wish. I wish I was delusional and could be proven wrong with certainty. The real conspiracy is happening right before our eyes.

Note the highlighted text from the wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#:~:text=He%20has...

[kennyloginz]

Not really, just look up RFK Jr’s “wellness farms”. https://www.salon.com/2025/02/19/rfk-s-plan-to-make-america-...

[mikeocool]

Yesterday, Trump announced he was killing congestion pricing in New York City. A program set up by the state of New York, to help fund infrastructure in New York.

Seems like an issue that should be left to the state, and yet here they are asserting federal authority over it.

[portaouflop]

I’m not that familiar with US politics but I read that this was more a symbolic move and he actually can’t influence this law since as you pointed out it’s a matter of the New York state. He can announce things all day, which is exactly the strategy - do at least 5 ridiculous things every day and the media/people can’t react fast enough — bury them in shit

[ziml77]

If it was purely symbolic then it may be even worse because the Truth Social post he wrote to announce it ended with "LONG LIVE THE KING!"

[bavell]

He loves a good troll and the media + commentariat eats it up like candy and gives him all the free airtime he wants.

[watwut]

He means those things. And does those things.

He is just a tell is how enablers made all these people sound innocent and their detractors crazy. At this point I believe it was often deliberate strategy. Plus crazy paranoid were actually 100% correct over years.

[int_19h]

You know, people used to say that about Putin, way back when he was originally elected fair and square. Funny how that worked out.

[mikeocool]

Like many things in US politics, “it’s complicated.” The program had to get approval from the federal government (which was granted by the Biden administration), it’s now up to the courts if Trump can rescind that approval.

The point is that saying power should go back to the states is really just a talking point conservatives use when it’s convenient for them, not actually a strongheld belief that guides their actions in any way.

[portaouflop]

I don’t live in the Us - I really don’t care about the specifics of US politics tbh

[intermerda]

> Trump says he may withhold federal aid for Los Angeles if California doesn’t change water policies - https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-republicans-taxes-ee....

Many conservatives agree including a sitting senator saying California should "change their ways".

> https://www.wxxinews.org/2025-02-20/new-york-governor-reject...

Louisiana wants to punish a New York doctor for prescribing medicine. Project 2025 in general wants to ban and criminalize medication abortion nationwide.

If I kept a running list of all the ways conservatives preach states right but don't really practice it, I wouldn't have much time to do anything else.

And "states rights" has been coded language anyway. Refer to Lee Atwater 1981 interview. Now the coded language has focused attention on "DEI", "trans", among other things.

[philistine]

Indeed, you're a sucker if you ever did believe it really ever was about state rights.

[krapp]

The thing you always need to ask when you hear about "state rights" is "state rights to do what?"

The answer is usually something Federal law or the Constitution would otherwise forbid, or that most people would consider morally reprehensible.

[gottorf]

That states' rights were claimed to keep slavery, or any other morally reprehensible thing, does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It means slavery and other morally reprehensible things are wrong.

Of course, at any given time, there exist a number of issues facing the public over which there is no clear consensus on whether they constitute something morally reprehensible.

You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming. I challenge you to claim that this is the case for, say, federal law forbidding marijuana versus states allowing it, or as was the case until very recently, enthusiastic support for pediatric gender reassignment from the federal government versus states outlawing it.

[watwut]

They are making the point that "states rights" is empty hypocritical talking point. It is meant to win argument by pretending you care about something you don't.

Everybody knows "state rights" imply conservative policies, but don't apply to anyone else.

[krapp]

>You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming.

Nope. The word I used is "usually." Go back and read it. You're the one who decided to replace that "usually" with "always" and I'm not obligated to play the strawman role for you.

When states make a special case out of states' rights it's usually not for a good reason, otherwise they could just pass state laws. States' rights arguments imply things the Federal government would be opposed to, that states would need to weaken the power of the Federal government to accomplish, usually where regulations or anti-discrimination laws are concerned.

[denkmoon]

Weak, divided governance, so that they can ignore it.

[UncleMeat]

If they were in favor of state and local government, why is the federal government threatening to sue California for admissions in the UC system and demanding that NYC's congestion pricing be ended or else lose federal funding? Why are faculty members at state universities being forced to change their research because it is on a verboten topic?

The idea that Trump, Musk, or anybody involved in leadership of Trump's administration care about state and local government authority is, frankly, fucking ludicrous.