Summary
Billionaires like Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy are spreading false claims to discredit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency protecting consumers from fraud and abuse.
Andreessen falsely accused the CFPB of politically motivated “debanking,” despite no evidence.
This rhetoric aligns with the “DOGE” project, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, which aims to slash government regulations and programs under the guise of efficiency.
Critics warn this effort will harm public services, benefit billionaires, and push privatization at the expense of ordinary Americans.
Yes. Pick up a history book, study the constitution, the bill or rights, and you’ll see that the founders were also crazy enough.
The billionaires in this country may have many monopolies but the US Government has the monopoly on violance. Counter to what Starship Troopers would lead you to believe, all power is derived from violence.
You are also wrong about public administration being necessary for social coordination and again you only need a history book to see this.
I’m not from the US, so I don’t care about your founders.
History books, and biology as well mind you, actually say that the actions of a group of individuals working together have more power than those of individuals working alone, and in any coordinated effort there is a subsection of the group that takes care of the whole and marks the pace. Throughout history the civilizations that managed to thrive and leave their mark were those whose governing body was efficient and effective, and there’s no denying that. You may be able to wrangle your friends and coordinate them without a specific administrative role, but try doing that with a group of people surpassing the hundreds of millions and you will have a problem.
In this instance, US history is more relevant than your opinions.
Ooooh nice, an enlightened Libertarian, and one that thinks that Americans are special, unique little snowflakes, different from the rest and immune to the rules that have historically governed the entirety of humanity for millennia
The article is about the US.
And this thread is about governments in general, and their necessity in enforcing these social contracts you’re referring to.
Wrong. You’re responding to me who is commenting on OP’s article.
You understand that there’s more than one person involved in an Internet comment thread right
Sure.
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/current-affairs-media-bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)#%3A~%3Atext=An+epistemic+bubble+is+an%2Cof+significant+information+and+reasoning.
In an extreme “echo chamber”, one purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.
For some reason it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t believe in history beyond 1776
Most of the history that comes to mind predates 1776, which makes sense.
Stopping your historical studies before things like the end of chattel slavery and the start of the industrial revolution seems like a bad idea. You might have missed one or two significant events.
I’m sorry I think you’re replying to the wrong person as I didn’t say anything about stopping but hey, go gettem tiger.
You said this:
So sure, you didn’t literally use the word stop. You just decided any history post-the third quarter of the eighteenth century was moot. My mistake.
What I said is straight forward and true and doesn’t say anything about stopping or history being moot, that’s all your baggage.
We have a lot of history about governments spanning many thousands of years so naturally when you are thinking about governments from a historical perspective, most will predate 1776. It doesn’t mean I am not thinking about what has transpired since but you know its been hundreds of years, and not thousands. Kind of a no-brainer my dude.
Pick up a history book
Collective action (government) is the only thing preventing you from being ruled by someone else’s collective action
That’s actually not true. See the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They’re documents that were written to guarantee and protect my rights as an individual. I was lucky to have been born in this time and place, look back or just around the world today and you will see countries without these arrangements. If you’re a US citizen and you don’t understand how lucky you are you need to travel more and read books. Get out of the city, and do it alone. You’ll see.
You were just arguing against this kind of government, but now you are all for it? Make up your mind. ‘the bill of rights’ means nothing without a government enforcing it.
In any case, this shows just how ignorant you are to the world around you. Documents protecting the rights of the populace aren’t exclusive to the US, nor were they the first to write them, look up the magna Carta, written in medieval times; or the Hammurabi code, one of the first written legal documents that protected the weak and the vulnerable.
What’s more, most countries today also have these protections written in their respective constitutions, so this whole “the US is special” talk is just propaganda you ate
The US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, in part protect the people from the government. Think about it.
Again, most countries have these protections as well. The USA is not special in this regard. Most countries have a document detailing the rights and duties of the people along with the obligations and limits to the state. And obviously, these documents are intrinsically linked to the government and would fail to prove valuable in its absence. In layman’s terms, you can’t have your bill of rights ‘protecting people from the government’ without having a government in the first place, as the mere document itself is a product of governance and part of the social contract
While it’s true that many countries have documents outlining the rights and duties of citizens, the significance of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights can’t be overstated.
These foundational documents were crafted with a specific emphasis on individual liberties and protection from government overreach, which sets them apart from similar documents in other nations. The fact that they’re products of governance doesn’t diminish their importance - it’s precisely because they’re rooted in the social contract that they’ve been able to shape American politics, law, and society in such profound ways.
You can’t dismiss the unique historical context in which these documents were written, nor can you downplay the impact they’ve had on the country. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights have served as a beacon for democracy and individual freedom around the world, inspiring countless others to fight for their own rights and liberties.
So, while I appreciate your point that other countries have similar documents, I believe it’s incorrect to imply that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are just like any other. They’re an integral part of American identity and a cornerstone of democracy - and that makes them truly special.
I appreciate your understanding, though I’m inclined to disagree. Of course I get the historical context in which they were written, but that doesn’t make it exceptional. You say in the US you have emphasis on personal freedom and protections against government overreach, but many countries would pride themselves as well in their take about it. Even so, in the USA your police officers can detain you on a whim declaring possible suspicion and confiscate your belongings if they so wish. You speak of personal freedoms, yet you still have stricter laws compared to my country in some cases, like drinking, gambling and prostitution or even jaywalking. Or the existence of HOAs, that despite not being governmental agencies themselves, they are adjacent and speak of aspects of american life that are more regulated than in other countries. You also have eminent domain in the USA, where the government can legally force you to sell your land.
And we can keep on comparing examples on how life differs based on countries, but to get back on track, the american constitution and its accompanying bill of rights are not inherently more ‘free’ than any other countries constitution. Even more so when you take into account that many countries’ constitutions were based partially on it, which itself was based on Roman law.
I understand how important they are to american speaking points, though, you said it best when you said it was an integral part of your perceived self image. But that doesn’t detract from the reality that people in the USA aren’t intrinsically ‘more free’ or have more freedom just because they are american, there are plenty of countries with comparable levels of rights and government overreach.
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which, btw, is part of the Constitution, so that’s redundant) are just pieces of paper. The only reason they mean anything is because of the implicit threat of violence/force by the state. It’s literally the way society exists.
No, the papers grant us rights if the government infringe they break the rules we break the rules.
Right, and whoever has more raw power wins. That’s what it really boils down to, that’s real politik. Shitty, but that’s how it is. Because if you don’t participate, the other people will straight up just kill you and take your land.
And who has the most raw power here, the largest (by far) military in the world? Or…? That’s the “natural order” that fascists want. “Might makes right.”
The military is comprised of citizens with rights granted by the same documents. I bet there is a large overlap between US patriots and service members.
Ah, the enlightened libertarian
The founders would routinely rape their slaves and participated in scalping. They were day drunk all the time because one of the best ways to clean water was to make it into beer. They didn’t believe in bathing, they thought washing the grime off would let the bad airs in and make them sick.
I need to take issue with this part because that is simply not how things worked. The ale that was being made at the time (and had been made and drunk by people for centuries before then) instead of water had an extremely low alcohol content. Even a small child would have to drink a LOT to get tipsy.
It was generally drunk the day after it was brewed, so it didn’t really have ages to ferment into a potent alcoholic drink. People did drink to get drunk, of course, but drinking small ale/small beer rather than water was not how they did it.
Largely irrelevant, if true.
It’s not irrelevant. They’re saying that the people you hold up as some kind of supremely enlightened few of a special era, were in fact products of their time who believed in a lot of silly things with no basis in science/reality, and committed many atrocities themselves.
I was a die-hard libertarian when I was 18. Then I learned a lot more about how the government actually functions. The more you know, the more painfully obvious it becomes that, not only is democratic government extremely necessary to support a civilization of our size, but also that uncoordinated government is literally impossible at scale. Try to lead a group of 20+ people in any activity and the importance of coordinated leadership will become evident very quickly.
The government that I am a part of, the society that I am a part of, actually has a problem with rape, torture, and murder. We even have a hard time, as a culture, with capital punishment. That doesn’t mean that we don’t do it but it’s a point of contention.
What you’re engaging with is known as the “association fallacy”. Here’s some homework for you, have fun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Are you sure about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny_and_mass_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
Fairly certain, yeah.
Then why is the government you’re a part of, and the society you’re a part of, continuing to perpetuate rape, torture and murder?
It’s socially unacceptable and illegal to do all three.
No… I’m not. Governing people and leading people are the same thing. I’m referencing doing it at two different scales. As you go up in scale, the rules change. Things like authoritarianism, socialism, libertarianism and communism work for small groups of people, but not when you start getting into populations in the millions.
“If true” hooooooly shit you just live in a different reality, huh.
Well, you made a blanket statement.
Where do you think Jefferson’s Black descendents come from? Who do you think paid the bounties for scalps? Germ theory wasn’t invented yet, they didn’t know why beer was safe to drink or why they needed to bathe. Settlers thought it was strange how the natives would strip naked and bathe in rivers - so uncivilized! Unlike Europeans, who would bathe as little as possible as to preserve their modesty.
All of this is easily looked up.
Your idols were evil morons. Read a history book.
Literally just spreading grade-school level misinfo because you never progressed past that level of understanding of history, lmao.
I say “if true” and you immediately conflate this to “it’s not true”.
You people wouldn’t survive outside of your echo chamber, I’m sure that’s why you’re here. There’s no room for independent thought, nuance, or critical thinking. You repeate a narrative and jack each other off all day, it’s disgusting.
Ah yes, the independent thought and nuance of repeating the propaganda fed to you by your own government. You’re such a free thinker!
I recommend reading Lies My Teacher Told Me. Then, when you finish that, A People’s History of the United States.
But I doubt you’ve ever read even one history book that wasn’t assigned to you by a teacher.
lmao, imagine seriously recommending either.
Try reading these “I’m 14 and this is deep” pop-history books to get on my level.
You seem so sure of your assumptions as you mock me as a free thinker. How rich.
I can’t help but notice you didn’t deny it.
I don’t need to, you made the claim, burden of proof is on you and I couldn’t give a shit less what you think. It’s just so amusing watching you behave exactly as I’ve come to expect from this community.