[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

[core_dumped]

They never do

[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?

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Being okay or ignoring such a label indicates a certain level of understanding it and accepting it.

I am ok if people choose to believe that.

<< because a society codifies its principles in the laws it created.

In broad strokes, sure; no real disagreement here.

<< 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.

No. Laws are laws. Norms are norms. Both are subject to change, but I worry that people confuse the two for whatever reason. Even the issue with Trump getting felon tag is resolved within the existing system since he is the president. You may disagree and despair that the norm "president shouldn't be a felon" is not upheld, but them is the breaks ( I was gonna write "that's democracy for you", but I don't think you would have found it as funny as I did ).

<< 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.

No. I am done with tacit acceptance of social coercion. It only allows current system to get more unstable as it basically rewards people who yell the loudest. If I really need to point out an example you may get behind, look at former Twitter. Musk bought recognizing that simple fact and used it to his advantage.

No. Pass on branding assholes with a giant A to point out to others.

<< it's for the moment nothing more than flag waving

Yes, thankfully thus far only minor incidents have taken place, but they are there and social media is not exactly helping.

<< But what happened, happened, and the question is, what now?

Honestly, I don't know, but my personal rule of thumb is to not make things worse.

[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.

[Izkata]

"Not even half" is being intentionally misleading: He did get more than his main opponent, by over 2 million voters.

[jrs235]

Mandates would come from popularity, not from weighted numbers.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I just had to check since I am admittedly sick. Even wikipedia has mandate[1] as

"mandate is a perceived legitimacy to rule through popular support. Mandates are conveyed through elections, in which voters choose political parties and candidates based on their own policy preferences."

Even if we play around with concepts here, in a very, very practical sense, if the mandate is conveyed through elections, at least at the very beginning of the administration, that administration has a mandate to govern. Now.. this perception may change, but you can't honestly tell me this administration has no mandate for one simple reason:

If it does not have a mandate, neither of the previous administrations did.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)

[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.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Fair point. I will respond to parent's comment below.

[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.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< Obama was literally that.

I will admit it is a good response, because McConnell is effectively on the record[2] for actively torpedoing any opposing party moves. Still, affordable ACA passed with -- I might add -- 'bipartisan' support ( quotation, because phrase is thrown out the moment even one opposing party joins the vote ).

On the other hand, we may need to go over some definitions, because it is possible we are somehow not talking about the same thing, but use the same words further confusing this conversation.

<< and punished own republicans for any compromises. << ( previous comment ) The moment they do, Republicans reject their own ides.

Practical question. Sides or ideas in the above as it will affect my interpretation.

>> 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 lock is VERY one sided.

Let us assume for a moment that I buy into your premise.

The current system is built around gridlock. I am not joking. The whole separation of powers is basically saying 'if you can't work something out, each side has opportunities to grind the system to a halt'. Which side uses the feature more is irrelevant to equation given that the system effectively incentivizes its use. We can talk all day about how things should be, but you don't exactly win golf tournaments by performing synchronized swimming routine.

Anyway, my very subtle point that both sides are the same stands. Do you know why? Because the 'sides' that do not understand the system and the rules it operates under do not last in congress very long ( and are ousted as you pointed out in your example ).

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act [2]https://www.inkl.com/news/mcconnell-wrote-blueprint-on-obstr...

[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. :)

[intended]

This is a weird realization, but everyone has their bit to play. Sometime that bit is because you happen to be the one at the table or the scene, and others are not.

[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.