I have my own experiences with divergence and all these different polities being discussed here directly involve my life as I understand it happening. That goes for my family and all the people I love and have loved.

That love extends to people who believe stuff I do not and enemies who wish me harm. That is what Rousseau meant by compassion. I will hurt you if I have to. But no fist pumps and triumphant trumpets.

I have my own experiences with divergence and all these different polities being discussed here directly involve my life as I understand it happening. That goes for my family and all the people I love and have loved.

That love extends to people who believe stuff I do not and enemies who wish me harm. That is what Rousseau meant by compassion. I will hurt you if I have to. But no fist pumps and triumphant trumpets. — Paine

And so you can't be neutral. I understand. Does it hurt if someone seems to be flippant about it?

We're the same in that we're both coming from love.

And so you can't be neutral. I understand. Does it hurt if someone seems to be flippant about it? — frank

It does. But how does that element relate to the description of power that Land lays out?

Trump suspending all foreign aid and dissolving U.S.A.I.D. is hardly a demonstration of strength. The America that I used to look up to was deeply committed to humanitarian aid and leadership. That tens of thousands of unfortunates are left suffering without that lifeline speaks volumes about Trusk. What is the opposite of 'philanthropy'? (Oh, it's misanthropy. Hatred of the human race.)

It does. But how does that element relate to the description of power that Land lays out? — Paine

I don't think it's related, sorry.

Then I don't see the importance of insisting upon the essay being germane.

Then I don't see the importance of insisting upon the essay being germane. — Paine

Oh. I think Musk is part of an expanding group with overlapping interests. There's Trump, who floated the idea of getting rid of term limits, and overtly sought to overturn an election. There's Vance, who has sympathy for Dark Enlightenment ideas. There's Vought, who the Project 2025 guy. And so on.

The general vibe is some kind of authoritarian libertarianism. What I'm seeing is that Musk is going straight for control of the Treasury, which would allow him wide control over how the government can respond to an attack from the Executive. Why is Musk in such a hurry? I mean, what is his vision for the US government in 4 years? I'm guessing an overhaul.

But what underpins it all is that Trump won comfortably. They have a mandate. I just happened to pick Dark Enlightenment to start with because this is a philosophy forum, and it's philosophy.

I am guessing from this screed that you have little interest in the topic of individual liberty that occupied your forebears.

I am guessing from this screed that you have little interest in the topic of individual liberty that occupied your forebears. — Paine

How do you come to that conclusion?

The mention of a mandate that overrules the preferences of a minority.

The mention of a mandate that overruled the preferences of a minority. — Paine

I think that's what happens when there's an election. The majority overrules the minority.

Honestly, this is a volatile issue. It's a little more than some people can handle, I'm starting to realize. The USA is changing in big ways, but I don't think you'll really need to worry too much. Everything will be ok.

Everything will be ok. — frank

To hell with that. You have just undermined the authority that could promulgate such an assurance.

To hell with that. You have just undermined the authority that could promulgate such an assurance. — Paine

Oh well. I tried.

Oh well. I tried. — frank

What?

Do peruse that article linked in the OP. — Wayfarer

Mr. Musk, who leads a cost-cutting initiative the administration calls the Department of Government Efficiency, boasted on Saturday that his willingness to work weekends was a “superpower” that gave him an advantage over his adversary. The adversary he was referring to was the federal work force.

:D Propaganda has worked.

If a bunch of tools barge into an office, would the office not require a warrant?
(Presumably, these are government offices, I have no idea about the legal details.)

On a separate note, if a bunch of tools barged into an office, would the office not require a warrant? — jorndoe

Ed Martin, the Trump appointed interim U.S. attorney in Washington, after hearing that some bureaucrats were allegedly resisting Musk and his tools, wrote a letter to Musk saying that he would "pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes on your work or threatens your people [...] We will protect DOGE and other (federal) workers no matter what."

But why was he wrong? Why does democracy fail to bring about what he hoped?

Rousseau takes great pains to distinguish between the particular and general will, but I think he failed. There is no general will, and thus no Sovereign. In practice the “general will” always turns out to be the will of some individual or faction or other (a particular will), namely, the rule of those who claim to know and represent the “general will”. The rule of this group or any other can never be the rule of the people. A republic or any other state is necessarily an oligarchy, and no one living in one can ever free.

So could a society be constructed so that the laws are the general will of the people? If we could, then wouldn't people finally be free?

I fear we should limit the term “society” to what it used to mean: a companionship, alliance, or fellowship, rather than taking it to be a nation-state. A State or country is not a society because we can’t know or interact with all members of any given nation, and therefore there can be no natural and social allegiance between countrymen as there would be between family, friends, and others we commonly deal with. I suppose only those kinds of societies ought to be constructed and nurtured, and only there can the rule of the people be found.

If a bunch of tools barge into an office, would the office not require a warrant?

It’s not their office. They just work there, or used to.

It’s not their office. They just work there, or used to. — NOS4A2

It's not Musk's office either. And he doesn't even work there.

If a bunch of tools barge into an office, would the office not require a warrant? — jorndoe

The warrant is ‘don’t you know who I am?’ :brow: Those resisting are threatened with arrest by Federal marshalls.

He works for the president of the United States. The people voted in the president to get Musk to do just what he is doing. Those offices are executive branch offices.

Having never gone through any kind of vetting or Congressional scrutiny let alone approval. With no published mandate or actual warrant. Deleting programs and withholding funds previously approved by Congress. Nothing remotely like it has ever been attempted.

He needs no congressional approval. He’s a special government employee, in this case appointed by the president to carry out the president’s mandate.

Having never gone through any kind of vetting or Congressional scrutiny let alone approval. With no published mandate or actual warrant. Deleting programs and withholding funds previously approved by Congress. Nothing remotely like it has ever been attempted. — Wayfarer

He can point to his glistening orange nose as proof that he has been personally granted The Seal of Unlimited Imperial Powers.

He’s a special government employee, in this case appointed by the president to carry out the president’s mandate. — NOS4A2

You just said moments ago that '[t]here is no general will, and thus no Sovereign. In practice the “general will” always turns out to be the will of some individual or faction or other (a particular will), namely, the rule of those who claim to know and represent the “general will”. The rule of this group or any other can never be the rule of the people.'

And now you seem to be arguing that Musk is carrying the president's mandate; that he is therefore acting on the authority of the people's general will.

By “people” I mean those who voted for him. Not everyone voted, and not everyone voted for Trump. I figured that would be obvious.

No doubt some will reject this article out of hand, but anyway here is a counterpoint:

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/swamp-apocalypse-wednesday-february

The gist is that the DOGE is merely reconnoitering, and that Congress will act on the information gathered, and that the courts will have no say in the matter.

the president of the United States

Are we talking plain dictatorship now?

State Dept. Plans $400 Million Purchase of Armored Tesla Cybertrucks

Conflict of interest? Me?

There is no general will, and thus no Sovereign. In practice the “general will” always turns out to be the will of some individual or faction or other (a particular will), namely, the rule of those who claim to know and represent the “general will”. — NOS4A2

The will of a "faction" is a "general will". It is not a "particular will". So in one sentence after the other, you have granted what you explicitly denied.

By “people” I mean those who voted for him. Not everyone voted, and not everyone voted for Trump. I figured that would be obvious. — NOS4A2

Let's get this straight. By your own words, there is no general will. He is carrying out what is wanted by the president, not what is wanted by the people. By your principles, there is no such thing as "what is wanted by the people". (Incidentally, those are the principles commonly exploited by the strategy known as "divide and conquer".)