Half the fun of being a political independent is examining interesting ideas from across the ideological spectrum—not just accepting limited concepts promoted exclusively by one team or the other.
Libertarian here. I'd love to see a candidate (from either/both side(s)) include in their platform a plan to weaken the executive office. If I say this when a D is in office, I'm some sort of tech-bro racist xenophobe who hates progress and poor people. I say it when a R is in office, I'm some naive beatnik who hates America.
If the last 10+ years have taught us anything, and clearly they haven't, it's that the side that you hate with do all kinds of stuff you hate and will push it just a little further each time. So let's just take away their ability to do so without some buy in from the rest of the system.
These aren't leaders we're electing, they're politicians. Let's treat them as such.
Agreed that the executive has become too powerful, but that’s because the alternative is shared power between the legislative and executive branches subject to judicial review.
Unfortunately, the legislative branch has had no interest in sharing power with the executive branch ever since social media and Citizens United. Power sharing would require members to be invested in the hard work of governing and face accountability for their actions when it’s easier to concentrate on campaign fundraising and media showboating and leave the executive to fill the vacuum.
And nothing in the constitution or in any document of colonial times suggest that any of us should be followers of anyone. Any 'leader' who tells me he will lead the way, will be shown the door by me.
I really like this part: "Determining the proper regulatory line...is difficult to define." Concentrated economic power is a problem, but some anti-monopolists seem to want to overcorrect, to insist small business is inherently better than big.
As you note, it's good to "look empirically," case by case. Sometimes the answer is more competition, sometimes it's policies like price controls and treating big companies as public utilities. I get the appeal of small business, but in general I think stronger unions, taxes, and regulations are better ways to limit corporate power.
Far from being unconcerned with education, big business has dumped billions into education, voluntarily, recognizing that they need educated employees.
Not all capitalists are republicans. Silicon valley is the fastest growing, arguably the richest segment of our economy, and it is not only democrat, but is openly anti-conservative. CA might be republican, except for Silicon Valley.
The two biggest, must disruptive monopiles in America are the democrat and republican parties. They blatantly violate the spirit of their own anti trust laws. Yes, let's break up the big banks and other giant corporations, including the liberal ones, but include the two parties that have absolute control over every government in America. THEY are the problem.
Unintended consequences. Absolutely agree. However, forecasting these can be nearly impossible and definitely difficult to handle within the legislative process. And when the consequences are apparent and predictable, political goals stand in the way.
Several examples come immediately to mind: Too Big To Fail - forecasted to potentially have the impact it did of concentrating banking and risk, warnings of these outcomes were raised and largely ignored. So how to include fail-safes while accomplishing the goal?
Elimination (or serious reduction) of fossil fuels in power generation - clearly a goal that needed to be reached in a measured transition, yet policies enacted in several northeastern states ignoring the warnings of definable consequences - yet ignored by legislators.
“No cash bail” policies - need I say more?
And this problem has existed for all time. Simply think that even FDR was opposed to public employee unionization; yet JFK needed votes and promised access to the unions - future consequences be damned.
Funding Obamacare with the earnings on the interest of student loans and thus “take over” of the program, the explosion of that debt, and the subsequent efforts to forgive those debts which would have worsened the government debt crisis by forcing the cost of coverage onto the budget.
Libertarian here. I'd love to see a candidate (from either/both side(s)) include in their platform a plan to weaken the executive office. If I say this when a D is in office, I'm some sort of tech-bro racist xenophobe who hates progress and poor people. I say it when a R is in office, I'm some naive beatnik who hates America.
If the last 10+ years have taught us anything, and clearly they haven't, it's that the side that you hate with do all kinds of stuff you hate and will push it just a little further each time. So let's just take away their ability to do so without some buy in from the rest of the system.
These aren't leaders we're electing, they're politicians. Let's treat them as such.
Agreed that the executive has become too powerful, but that’s because the alternative is shared power between the legislative and executive branches subject to judicial review.
Unfortunately, the legislative branch has had no interest in sharing power with the executive branch ever since social media and Citizens United. Power sharing would require members to be invested in the hard work of governing and face accountability for their actions when it’s easier to concentrate on campaign fundraising and media showboating and leave the executive to fill the vacuum.
And nothing in the constitution or in any document of colonial times suggest that any of us should be followers of anyone. Any 'leader' who tells me he will lead the way, will be shown the door by me.
I really like this part: "Determining the proper regulatory line...is difficult to define." Concentrated economic power is a problem, but some anti-monopolists seem to want to overcorrect, to insist small business is inherently better than big.
As you note, it's good to "look empirically," case by case. Sometimes the answer is more competition, sometimes it's policies like price controls and treating big companies as public utilities. I get the appeal of small business, but in general I think stronger unions, taxes, and regulations are better ways to limit corporate power.
A couple of caveats.
Far from being unconcerned with education, big business has dumped billions into education, voluntarily, recognizing that they need educated employees.
Not all capitalists are republicans. Silicon valley is the fastest growing, arguably the richest segment of our economy, and it is not only democrat, but is openly anti-conservative. CA might be republican, except for Silicon Valley.
The two biggest, must disruptive monopiles in America are the democrat and republican parties. They blatantly violate the spirit of their own anti trust laws. Yes, let's break up the big banks and other giant corporations, including the liberal ones, but include the two parties that have absolute control over every government in America. THEY are the problem.
Unintended consequences. Absolutely agree. However, forecasting these can be nearly impossible and definitely difficult to handle within the legislative process. And when the consequences are apparent and predictable, political goals stand in the way.
Several examples come immediately to mind: Too Big To Fail - forecasted to potentially have the impact it did of concentrating banking and risk, warnings of these outcomes were raised and largely ignored. So how to include fail-safes while accomplishing the goal?
Elimination (or serious reduction) of fossil fuels in power generation - clearly a goal that needed to be reached in a measured transition, yet policies enacted in several northeastern states ignoring the warnings of definable consequences - yet ignored by legislators.
“No cash bail” policies - need I say more?
And this problem has existed for all time. Simply think that even FDR was opposed to public employee unionization; yet JFK needed votes and promised access to the unions - future consequences be damned.
Funding Obamacare with the earnings on the interest of student loans and thus “take over” of the program, the explosion of that debt, and the subsequent efforts to forgive those debts which would have worsened the government debt crisis by forcing the cost of coverage onto the budget.