We go through these changes. We're in a stable enough civilisation. I don't see any reason to think it wont. Reagan was probably thought of this way. As would have Lincoln been in his time. As will future Presidents. I cannot see that this is in any way that matters, a special case. Call me ignorant if you want (not you, personally) - I don't think so after quite careful, and long-term (what, nine years now?) consideration. That term includes the evidence for what I'm saying. If Biden's term wasn't the same type of threat, then this isn't one. — AmadeusD

Don't you live in New Zealand?

Therefore, although I benefit from social security, I am appalled at Trumpsk heavy-handed axing. Yet, I must admit that something must be done to keep the nation solvent. And perhaps only an elected dictator, and an un-elected henchman, could be expected to mandate such an overhaul of federal finances. FDR's dictatorial policies were allowed only because even the oligarchs could see the hand-writing on the wall, foretelling the total failure of empire unless some "hero" could be found to do what was necessary. Do you see any other route to federal solvency? :smile: — Gnomon

Totally agree and applaud your whole post here. Although there is no dictator in this picture, nothing that has been done by the executive has been unconstitutional or against the "republic" despite the best efforts of the media machine and the TDS folks will have you believe. I think you have correctly characterized the overall picture and put it in a decent historical perspective. In the same way FDR did what was necessary at the time, Trump/Musk are making a necessary correction. Whether they are going to far or not far enough remains to be seen and history will judge. People posting in here seem to be so certain of the results of the reduction in government based on what? Media reporting? Anecdotal reactions from federal workers? I would rather wait and see. Buggy whip makers were terrified when cars became the norm. Federal workers who largely or in general "do not work as hard" as private sector workers are terrified they may have to work and justify their paychecks without a guaranteed job no matter what their performance is. Of course there are exceptions but they are very few.

Yes, I am speaking with the perspective of an extensive 25 years of experience in an environment of both federal workers and federal contractors. Even the contractors get away with being less productive then strictly private sector workers. They just don't have the absolute security and job guarantee that the actual govey has had up until now. The intense resistance by the federal bureaucracy to these changes is completely predictable. It's up to the whole society to decide how much government is reasonable, but one thing is certain whether we need more or less government, that is the federal worker should not be entrusted to police and regulate themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to vote themselves raises, to give themselves a separate and premium healthcare system that private citizens don't get, they shouldn't be immune from being terminated due to non performance. They shouldn't be allowed the boondoggles they regularly gone on without regard for cost as it's not their money they spend.

All of that is currently true and has lead to a government bloat that will destroy us if not dramatically reformed.

This paragraph is not meant for you but for all the posters who pretend to know what Musk's motives are. I see other posters claiming that this is all being done to benefit the 2 men in question. Other than making them feel as if they have made a difference of historical significance what benefit do they get? Money? Seriously dumb notion that the richest man in the world is doing what he is doing, subjecting himself to such rhetorical abuse, donating time and a portion of his fortune so he can make more money. That really is just one of the dumbest things I've seen in this thread. He has more money than most human beings can even contemplate. He can literally do anything that can be done materially. He can literally buy any experience and any kind of lifestyle that can be bought and yet he chooses to participate in fixing the way this country runs. Now disagree with his communication style or his methods but please stop pontificating on his motives which you can't possibly know.
.

It was rhetorical. If that's all you need to make you 'sure' of a generational speculation, I'm unsure where to take this..

Don't you live in New Zealand? — Maw

Yep. What's the relevance? (fwiw, I hate it here LOL. Seems about as relevant).

In case you're going to make some argument about how my not living hte USA precludes me from commenting, or caring about hte US state of affairs (or having an accurate view of it) miss me. Cannot deal with such stupidity. If it's not, that's fine, and ignore this. It is a very common response I'd prefer to get ahead of is all.

Yesterday I was at an intersection and I saw a hand written sign that said, "It says of the people, by the people, for the people."

I thought to myself, hey, somebody gets it.

What, isolationism? Hehe.

It was rhetorical — AmadeusD

I thought you were asking me how I knew, not what might convince others.

If that's all you need to make you 'sure' of a generational speculation, I'm unsure where to take this.. — AmadeusD

The observation that a generational crisis is at hand comes from a life of work. When an outfit fires the Old Salts and the Rookies at the same time, the game is over. There is no way to reproduce the enterprise.

Huh. I see the train, I guess i just bare disagree. We'll see, I suppose :)

Musk's activities have been elbowed out of the news for a few days by the Signal leak scandal. Coverage will resume when the chainsaw comes back into view.

Are you disagreeing with the statement that institutional collapse is eminent or saying that such an event will not change the course of future polity?

Other than making them feel as if they have made a difference of historical significance what benefit do they get? Money? Seriously dumb notion that the richest man in the world is doing what he is doing, subjecting himself to such rhetorical abuse, donating time and a portion of his fortune so he can make more money. That really is just one of the dumbest things I've seen in this thread. He has more money than most human beings can even contemplate. He can literally do anything that can be done materially. He can literally buy any experience and any kind of lifestyle that can be bought and yet he chooses to participate in fixing the way this country runs. Now disagree with his communication style or his methods but please stop pontificating on his motives which you can't possibly know. — philosch

This is certainly worth stating. The assumption that cupidity is the sole motivator seems banal. Such a conclusion involves a degree of mind reading or, at the very least, constructing a narrative from selective inferences. There is always the possibility that those whose approach and values we detest are acting sincerely, believing they are doing what is best. Someone like Musk likely thrives on problem-solving and the pursuit of significance. Vainglory is surely a far greater driving force for such a personality than money. One might have deep concerns about a person so consumed by ideology and the desire for status. I suspect the key to understanding all this is in how the change is managed and what its impacts are and how much Musk cares.

The assumption that cupidity is the sole motivator seems banal — Tom Storm

Indeed. I think it’s about power. And ideology.

Yep. What's the relevance? — AmadeusD

Just wanted to point out how your (over 6K mile) physical removal from the United States coincides with your casually abstract - to the point of callousness - comments, which are equally removed from the devastating day-to-day realities that people are suffering through, thanks to the direction of this administration.

This paragraph is not meant for you but for all the posters who pretend to know what Musk's motives are. I see other posters claiming that this is all being done to benefit the 2 men in question — philosch

I don't see Musk as acting purely for personal gain or benefit. He has complex motivations, one of which is his often-stated aim of colonizing Mars. Aside from being the legendary 'world's richest man', he also has many business interests, and indeed, were it not for his obnoxious right-wing ideology, I would have found much to admire about him. But this DOGE campaign he is running is completely outside the bounds of constitutional oversight and political convention. The abrubt termination of the greater part of US foreign aid is endangering lives all over the developing world. Many of DOGE's actions on the domestic front have been slipshod and palpably cruel. Thousands of workers have been summarily dismissed by form emails, often with virtually zero notice. This included, it turned out, some highly skilled workers at the nuclear oversight commission, who all had to be hired back. DOGE has made no secret of the fact that federal workers who are known to support Democrats or are Democrat party members will be fired on grounds of insufficient loyalty to Trump. (One of the rationales for the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D was that it was a largely Democrat-leaning organisation.) Musk and DOGE have also amplified and repeated baseless lies in support of their activities.

So, no, I don't Musk is in it for the money. I think he's intoxicated with power, with the ability to bend the entire Government of the US to his will, and to ruthlessly manifest whatever strange vision he has for the kind of society the US is to become.

As for Trump, there's a separate thread for that.

But this DOGE campaign he is running is completely outside the bounds of constitutional oversight and political convention — Wayfarer

Where do you get this from? What does constitutional oversight mean? I think you mean to say congressional oversight as the constitution is a document. The executive(Trump) has the authority to what he is doing and he can ask someone to look into and make recommendations to him. Then congress can challenge constitutionality through the courts. Nothing remarkable or unusual about any of this aside from the way the bureaucracy is portraying it. The courts are stepping in all over the place so apparently it's NOT outside oversight from the judicial branch so your "completely outside constitutional oversight" statement is COMPLETELY false. Especially if all these people were fired and had to be rehired as you say.

It may be outside of political convention but that's precisely what people want, political convention has gotten us here. Political convention means the end justifies the means, lobbyist hold sway, lying and hypocrisy are virtues and so on, so I'm glad it's outside of political convention. Certainly nothing illegal or unconstitutional about going against political convention. Musk's right wing ideology is something he recently grew into. He was a hero of the left right up until he chose to think for himself and observe the censorship and complete ineptitude of the administration in power which was largely the liberal democrat bureaucracy. He's still doing the same kinds of things he did prior to his enlightenment but now it gets labelled as "right wing" ideology instead of just common sense so he's evil and his eco-friendly electric cars should be trashed, even though they are predominantly owned by democrats. I mean the left is this country is just brilliant aren't they? You are also getting your news from the echo chamber which you live in. You believe in the bureaucracy and everything it tells you.

The bottom line running through all of these arguments between right and left is: do you believe that a large government directing and taking care of every aspect of your life is the way to go or do you believe in a limited government that's there for essential protections only and people should be as free as possible without allowing exploitation and abuse of that freedom. Anyone who knows anything about history and the nature of all powerful organizations knows that they feed on themselves and will ultimately become corrupt. The founders of our republic knew this well so they built a system to try and minimize the chances for corruption. Since FDR we have been heading down this road of more and more and more government. A liberal European type social democracy here will end up being a disaster for the entire world. So the pendulum has swung back and everyone should relax, we will be fine with less government. It's not perfect, it's messy, but it's better than being Europe-West.

So, no, I don't Musk is in it for the money. I think he's intoxicated with power, with the ability to bend the entire Government of the US to his will, and to ruthlessly manifest whatever strange vision he has for the kind of society the US is to become. — Wayfarer

He is acting as an advisor to Trump. Both men appear to be more interested in allowing private innovation and meritocracy to be the guiding principles to maintaining a strong and viable country. Your statement here is so over the top and hyperbolic. He was ask to help trim the fat and get rid of the corruption and abuse of the how the taxpayer's money is spent by RECOMMENDING cuts and the bureaucracy predictably doesn't like it and is fighting for it's life using every trick it knows which historically is to lie, exaggerate, propagandize, falsely accuse and falsely characterize every single action as evil. Trump or his agency heads sign the orders to cut where DOGE recommends.

Lastly colonizing Mars is a next logical step in our development and is critical to the long term survival of human kind. That's simply a scientific fact. I doubt his DOGE activities have anything to do with those plans other than to say he wants the US to survive and continue to be the "Free Beacon" on the hill long enough to realize that next step. People around the entire earth want to come here to escape oppressive governments. Why are people here so hell bent on recreating those oppressive governments here? Liberal socialist ideologies fail every single time they have been tried but yet people still push it here.

What does constitutional oversight mean? — philosch

I'm not going to do your homework. Trump has zero interest in balancing the budget, by all projections the national debt will balloon under his proposals. I'm not going to respond point by point, other than to say that I think the Trump Presidency is an absolute disaster for both America and the world, and that Trump and Musk between them are doing terrible damage to fabric of society. If that's 'hyperbolic' then so be it.

Trump has zero interest in balancing the budget, by all projections the national debt will balloon under his proposals. I'm not going to respond point by point, other than to say that I think the Trump Presidency is an absolute disaster for both America and the world, and that Trump and Musk between them are doing terrible damage to fabric of society. If that's 'hyperbolic' then so be it. — Wayfarer

:100: :up:

Totally agree and applaud your whole post here. Although there is no dictator in this picture, nothing that has been done by the executive has been unconstitutional or against the "republic" despite the best efforts of the media machine and the TDS folks will have you believe. I think you have correctly characterized the overall picture and put it in a decent historical perspective. In the same way FDR did what was necessary at the time, Trump/Musk are making a necessary correction. — philosch

For a philosophical perspective, the Feb/Mar 2025 issue of Philosophy Now magazine asks "was Machiavelli so bad?" The editorial discusses Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politika. The editor says Politika was the "first scientific study of different forms of government". Then notes that "each type has a 'true form' and 'deviant form'. Here are Aristotle's six forms of government : Monarchy (king) & Tyranny (despot) ; Aristocracy (nobility) & Oligarchy (2% wealthy) ; Polity (oligarchy+democracy) and Democracy (100% representation). At this time, we seem to be precariously balanced on the knife-edge of a Polity. I'll let you decide which is "good/true" and which "bad/deviant" for any particular time & place.

Referring back to Machiavelli, the editor says "For a politician, he says 'good' doesn't mean being nice, but doing what needs to be done, even if it's treacherous, violent or cruel.". The editorial doesn't specifically mention Trump/Musk, but I assume that Trumpsk may agree with Machiavelli's pragmatic advice to a Prince with an unruly populace. "Thinkers such as Spinoza and Rousseau have therefore read The Prince as a warning to all of us, so we learn how politicians think and how we may protect our liberty".

The US government has always been a compromise between the efficiency of an autocrat (allied with noble senators) and the stability of a democrat (with plebian house of commons). Since Trump has been elected temporary King, we now seem to be in a Polity with a feckless Congress. But, since I have no money or property to worry about, I'm content to wait & see what this overhaul of "Liberal" government will do for the often polarized polity. Will we endure another Great Depression or a Civil War? Or will we just muddle through as usual? :smile:


The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Referring back to Machiavelli, the editor says "For a politician, he says 'good' doesn't mean being nice, but doing what needs to be done, even if it's treacherous, violent or cruel.". The editorial doesn't specifically mention Trump/Musk, but I assume that Trumpsk may agree with Machiavelli's pragmatic advice to a Prince with an unruly populace. "Thinkers such as Spinoza and Rousseau have therefore read The Prince as a warning to all of us, so we learn how politicians think and how we may protect our liberty".

The US government has always been a compromise between the efficiency of an autocrat (allied with noble senators) and the stability of a democrat (with plebian house of commons). Since Trump has been elected temporary King, we now seem to be in a Polity with a feckless Congress. Since I have no money or property to worry about, I'm content to wait & see what this overhaul of "Liberal" government will do for the often polarized polity. Will we endure another Great Depression or a Civil War? Or will we just muddle through as usual? :smile: — Gnomon

Not sure I agree with every characterization here but once again a very reasonable and interesting post, I commend you on your thoughtfulness. I'll have to read some of the referenced material here. Quite different from another poster who likes to quote unnamed or biased sources as well as use several logical fallacies sometimes in the same post.

Musk's right wing ideology is something he recently grew into. He was a hero of the left right up until he chose to think for himself and observe the censorship and complete ineptitude of the administration in power which was largely the liberal democrat bureaucracy. — philosch

I suggest you look a little closer at this so-called enlightenment.

At the same time, his daughter Vivian came out as transgender and changed her name, declaring that she no longer wanted to “be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form”.

Musk himself has cited Vivian as a reason for his political shift, telling the pop psychologist Jordan Peterson that he had “lost [his] son [sic], essentially”, and concluding that his son “is dead, killed by the woke mind virus”.

--- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/09/elon-musks-journey-from-humanitarian-to-poster-of-rightwing-memes

Lastly colonizing Mars is a next logical step in our development and is critical to the long term survival of human kind. That's simply a scientific fact. — philosch

I can only take this as a joke. Then again, the things which pass as "scientific fact" to some these days, never ceases to amaze me. Since Mr. Musk sems to believe that AI is the biggest threat to human kind, I suppose that the opportunity of a colony on Mars where AI is fully outlawed, is the basis of this "scientific fact".

Not sure I agree with every characterization here but once again a very reasonable and interesting post, — philosch

Obviously, the characterizations of Autocrat (King ; Prince ; President) and Democrat (rule by committee) are over-simplifications of complex issues that I am not qualified to discuss. But the founders of the US Constitution tried to offset the negative aspects of single-minded Autocrat and indecisive Democrat, by forcing them to work together. :smile:


Making trains run on time :
IT IS A myth that, whatever his faults, Benito Mussolini, dictator of Italy in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, made the trains run on time. He didn't. If even a man with dictatorial powers cannot enforce a railway timetable, what hope is there in a messy democracy?
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/11/03/making-trains-run-on-time

Why hasn't there been any fraud cases yet?