@landley i don't think social-democracy-ing harder is the same as capitalismism-ing harder, though i agree everything looks very hard right now.
was today seriously or literally?
@landley we have new tools. back then only King George and the billionaires could levy taxes.
so i'm confused now. were the people who believed he would do what he repeatedly and forcefully said he would do get it right, or did the people who presumed he was bullshitting?
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen we'll disagree that that's the best way to go. i still want a state that can, say, participate credibly in alliances. tbf, we've fucked it up pretty badly already.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen truly a pleasure! i think so well of you too, my dear interlocutor who is fine with people who worked with USAID in good faith getting tortured so Elon can play USAID files, thinks that would serve a larger, noble purpose.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen if players are rogue, i think the accountability has to be imposed on those players, rather than the people they dupe.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen if you say so. you are really a delightful person to share a discussion with.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen my view i'm not so optimistic... i agree we'd be better off with a new regime that made administrations budget their secrecy more carefully, made it scarce. but that again would be work for Congress, if it is to outlast an administration.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen i agree secrecy is overused and abused by the bureaucracy.
that doesn't mean secrecy never has a role, or that it's legit and not evil to undo it basically randomly.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen i guess i can't disagree with "it's virtuous to screw people over because they should know better than to trust me because i don't trust myself to act well." it's a case you can make, but i think we need a capable government which means we actually have to act well.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen he absolutely can stop any further covert aid (unless Congress has mandated it, which i doubt). he just shouldn't fuck over people who relied in good faith on a promise of discretion from prior administrations. and it'd be a more permanent change if Congress did it.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen if you say so.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen if the enterprise is crooked, by all means get out of it. but if you've promised discretion, keep your promise.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen People in general who have worked in good faith with my government. I have no more specific knowledge.
@freemayonnaise @Phil @Harald_Korneliussen Congress could absolutely forbid covert aid. (I'd support that.) If @Phil interpretation is right, someone could sue to get the practice enjoined without further work by Congress. But what is done is already done.
@Phil @freemayonnaise @Harald_Korneliussen not true in law. if a "rogue operator" is presented in such a way by an organization that a reasonable counterparty would consider them to be acting in the name of the organization, the organization often finds itself on the hook. as a matter of ethics, stipulating your interpretation of nonauthorization, if someone accepted support from a real USG agent on promise of discretion that shouldn't have been made, your ethical view is "oops! sucks for you!"?
@freemayonnaise the administration has a lot of flexibility about the working of agencies!
but it has zero flexibility over the existence of any agency, and at least in some form pursuing the objectives for which Congress constituted it.
@freemayonnaise dude, they are accessing the files, reportedly including classified files. no, i don't know the details, i hope they are less bad than they might be, but that's problematic as fuck.
again, you take this shit far too lightly. it is a different topic, but not remotely a "molehill" that Musk talks about "shutting down" an agency when our Costitutional system permits that only of Congress.