undefined | Better HN

0 pointskelnos1y ago0 comments

The problem is that we painted ourselves into a this corner long ago. Even if Congress wasn't generally paralyzed by bad-faith partisan fighting, the House and Senate are not equipped to do even a small fraction of what the executive branch does today.

If we removed much of the executive branch's power, it wouldn't be "less efficient". The government just wouldn't do anything.

Some people (current GOP) seems to think this would be a good thing.

0 comments

jimkleiber1y ago

Agreed. If government provides fewer services, companies can provide more services at a profit. Why have public (non-profit) education when you can have private (highly profitable) education? Who needs public (non-profit) health insurance when you can have private (highly profitable) health insurance?

The list can go on and on.

3D304974201y ago

Exactly.

There's probably some theory about power being like the conservation of energy, in that it doesn't get destroyed, just transformed or moved. Take power away from the government and that power doesn't just make people more free, it just goes somewhere else. Clearly the intent is to move that power from the government (which is at least nominally meant to protect citizens) to companies/the rich.

jimkleiber1y ago

That's how I see it as well. Government in theory should protect the citizens, which I assume often means the consumers and the workers. But maybe capitalism run amok is when capitalists accumulate the power and use it to strong-arm the government into liking the corporate shareholders (capitalists?) more than the citizens.

1 more reply

ashoeafoot1y ago

and it does https://top-of-the-poops.org/

biohcacker841y ago

Most conservatives and Libertarians from all times think that.

A minority of those on the right, don't.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse