Hacker News Reader

Comment by raytopia | Hacker News Reader

How much is this going to mess up the ability for the federal government to operate?

If Congress had a decent velocity/agility it would probably be okay. But their inability to pass laws in a timely fashion will make it very challenging for the federal government to keep up with societal changes.

Get ready for more of this sort of things being hidden in massive budget laws voted along party lines.

That depends. The parts of the federal government that follow the most straightforward and reasonable interpretation of the law? None. Those that are despotic and issue novel interpretations that turn Americans into felons overnight? Let's hope it messes them up quite a bit.

Barely at all. The federal government will continue operating 99% exactly as before. A few controversial agency decisions will get reviewed and overturned, and Congress might even address those specifically in legislation, and even better, Congress might write better legislation. We'll see agencies lobbying Congress, too. But that's it. Few will even notice.

It would depend on the scope and extent that operations within an agency rely on their interpretation of the law. It will certainly be interesting to see the impact once the transitional period ends.

The hope from conservatives seems to be 100%.

There must be a great deal of tension within the right. On the one hand, some undoubtedly consider themselves small government libertarian types, but the recently ascendent MAGA folks are decidedly authoritarian and absolutely willing to use the federal government as a weapon against their perceived enemies. This sort of ruling helps the former but not the latter.

There is no tension.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Francis M. Wilhoit

Viewed through this lens the actions are completely consistent.

This quote can be helpful for analyzing many situations. But applied generally it throws the baby out with the bathwater - people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda.

(as an aside I think if you're in the libertarian camp but yet still supporting 2024's radical republican party you're either hoping for outright societal collapse or you're gravely mistaken about what it now stands for)

> people who legitimately want small government, and aren't merely using libertarian precepts as cover for an authoritarian agenda.

AKA useful idiots. The fundamental debate between big versus small government is deceptive. What we really need is effective and efficient government (roughly in that order, in my opinion). Sometimes that is big, sometimes that is small.

I agree on the "effective and efficient" point. I'd say the deception mainly arises out of ignoring that corporations have formed de facto government. That's the fundamental contradiction that causes the banner of "individual liberty" be transmuted into "corporate liberty", still ultimately denying freedom to individuals.

So I do not agree with the "useful idiots" blanket characterization. It seems needlessly divisive, when what people who've become myopically focused on the nominal government need is to see the larger picture whereby corporations that capture markets, collude, and create externalities also independently destroy individual liberty. Not solely by regulatory capture, or otherwise enabled by the nominal government, but rather entirely on their own due to the fact that markets are not entirely efficient (P != NP).

*reactionaries. "Conservatives" is now more of an appropriate label for the other party. I'm not making a judgement about whether this particular state of things needed to be conserved or shook up, just about the use of labels that imply wanting to preserve the status quo for groups that want to radically change it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com