Comment by bearjaws | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bearjaws | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thats not really planned in Project 2025, more likely any large tech company that bent the knee to Trump will be exempt, but we shall see.

At the same time, the document discusses how large tech companies influence politics, and can harm individuals.

> Conservative approaches to antitrust and consumer protection continue to trust markets, not government, to give people what they want and provide the prosperity and material resources Americans need for flourishing, productive, and meaningful lives.

> At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these develop- ments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement.

https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...

> At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these develop- ments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement.

That's a CYA if I've ever seen one.

They couldn't care less about government-private sector collusion. It's literally the dream of the tech Neo-feudalist crowd. Before the idea of "private property" came about in Enlightenment-era England, some guy owned everything, and the commoners labored for his enrichment. Since capitalism - at least as we've interpreted it in America - means consolidation of massively-capitalized corporations which control more numerous and diverse markets, that's kind of the endgame when one removes the ability of the government to stop such consolidation.

The question is, if nothing is done, who will it be?

There's a conflict between destroying all government, corrupting it for personal gain by a given elected official, and corrupting it to serve a given owner of a given megacorp.

Somewhere along the way ethics, morals, truth, and serving We the People was lost.

How much did you donate to the Trump campaign? Shouldn't the Trump administration serve their supporters? Shouldn't they pay more attention to the supporters who support them more (in $$)?

Unless you are giving trump literally millions of dollars, that doesn't matter.

How much he cares about your opinion is directly proportional to the money you give and could give him. When competing with a billionaire, 0 -> $100,000 is basically meaningless.

That's the MO of both parties in the US. During the last campaign the Democrats bombarded me with E-mails begging for money. They never asked for my opinion and never mentioned anything they were planning to do. The message was "Vote for me or the world will go under"

Keep going until you hit “no taxation without representation” and you will have come full circle.

The US needs California. California does not need the US.

Sorry, he's not president of the Republicans... He's president of the United States, and should be serving everyone in the country to the best of his ability.

If you're not being sarcastic, that's a really wild belief you have...and I'm really hoping it's not widespread.

"serving everyone in the country"

That's long over. Whoever wins by 1% believes they have the mandate to only cater to their constituents (which is mostly wealthy donors)

I'd like some concrete examples of that happening in the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations.

I wish Obama acted like he had a mandate and just pushed through his agenda...

Instead we had BS like the parliamentarian saying "no you can't do that", and the Democrats would simply drop it.

Last time the Republicans had pushback from the parliamentarian they just replaced him with somebody that would do what they wanted.

Stop pretending this is a "both sides" issue.

You are right about not prentending this is a “both sides” issue, but for the wrong reason. There is only one side. Two colors but one side. When the blue team is in power, it somehow fails to do all the things that its voters want. It is meek and pitiful. Because it is not serving the blue voters. It is serving its backers and its backers want what the red team wants. So when the blue team is in power it magically fails at everything. Whoops! I guess blue team people are just ineffective liberal losers. When the red team is in power it does whatever it wants, because what it wants publicly is what their backers want.

Well said. No notes.

To add a bit more, if Schumers behavior doesn’t prove it I don’t know what does. The leader of the blue team in the senate voted red at the first and most consequential opportunity.

Imagine paypigging a politician.

You are arguing for despotism; the patronage model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and detailed in The Logic of Political Survival (both by Alistair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita). This is incompatible with a functioning republic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com