Afternoon of Day 7 of the Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025(crisesnotes.com) |
Afternoon of Day 7 of the Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025(crisesnotes.com) |
Day 7, morning: https://www.crisesnotes.com/day-seven-of-the-trump-musk-trea...
This ongoing story is in a sense about hackers gaining access to an ancient mainframe that controls trillions of dollars of payments a year, and using that to wield political power. A rather "Hacker News" story if you ask me, even if it comes across as an "are we the baddies" moment.
There's a meta argument to be had on whether reducing the size and scope of state power is political. It is political in that it is politically contentious, however reducing the scope of things which come under the purview of politics is as close as anything can come to anti-political in our current environment of hyper-politicalization.
As to your second point, I think you're using a rather odd definition of what is political. Anything that requires agreement or compromise between a group of individuals involves politics, whether the context is your work, your neighborhood, or your government. In that sense, "reducing state power" is absolutely political. It took political agreement for the government to do new things, and it should take political agreement for the government to stop doing those things.
There's nothing inherently bad about politics, if we define it this way. I would also disagree that the current environment is hyper-political. We're free to do plenty of things without needing political agreement.
On the other hand, I would agree that the current environment is hyper-partisan. I think we do often judge one another these days based on political (really, party) affiliation, and let everything be tainted by those tribal instincts. I find that unfortunate, but partisanship has little to do with the size of government. Whether one wants change or the status quo, every option should involve politics. The only way out is to live in an autocracy, and history has shown that even then, you're not really free of politics for very long.
https://www.vox.com/pages/funding
Another one is Politico, which has been receiving an alleged aggregate of 8M in funds for "institutional subscriptions" at 37K each. Aligned media groups are out in force to argue these figures by misleading turns of phrase. Typically they will cite, "we only took [smaller amount] from [specific agency]", rather than discussing the aggregate amounts. Searching for what should be easily accessible public data has been hampered as a result.
You'll find that many of the NGOs which funded Vox were in turn funded by USAID. As for the board memberships, you can also pursue those sources yourself. There's a self-perpetuation element to this graft, when aligned partisan media groups are funded with state funds.
"Jill Biden named board chair of aid group Save the Children"
https://apnews.com/general-news-b9dfd4705dc046a68ae53a1b262c...
"Save the Children is pleased to announce that we are a core partner on MOMENTUM 2A, a recently awarded 5-year, $100 million program funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) that will advance the survival and the health of women, mothers, newborns, and children worldwide."
https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we-do/health/save-th...
"Save the Children offices raided in child trafficking investigation"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/save-children-offices-raided-chil...
>Greed has been with us forever.
....
>...every option should involve politics. The only way out is to live in an autocracy..
This keeps coming up here on HN. I feel that many posters fundamentally misunderstand the foundational values of western liberalism that gave rise to The United States. If not for these values, we probably would not be celebrating "Democracy" as the highest good, which is in itself a misunderstanding of individualist liberalism.
Yes, greed is innate to the human condition. Lord Acton has a famous quote that applies here. By recognizing the fallible nature of man, we then seek to limit the scope of possible corruption by limiting the scope of the state. It isn't authoritarian or autocratic to ask that those who wish to support Vox, do so voluntarily with their own funds.
The entire premise of a limited republican government is based upon limiting the coercion of the state. It starts from the first principles of Natural Rights. Many will dispute the validity of this approach, but to characterize it as autocratic is to misunderstand history and the basics of philosophy.
What a individual does with his own private property in absence of coercive taxes is not a political matter. Little "D" democracy has a role to play in the specific implementation of our limited republic, but it is not the highest good. We should not be voting away property for special causes or partisan journalists. This is not because we regard all special causes as being unworthy of support, but because we oppose authoritarianism. We oppose the of the tyranny of the majority. We recognize the dangerous feedback effects of politicians voting themselves and their constituents public funds.
There's nothing autocratic in this. The effort to spin it as such preys upon the illiteracy of the reader. If anything, it is slight restoration of the original values of These United States. If we recall history, the issues around 1776 were in response to an unaccountable parliament taxing colonists without adequate representation.
Posters go off the rails when they invoke Fascism in regards to these cuts. Mussolini famously said, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
> The entire premise of a limited republican government is based upon limiting the coercion of the state.
> We should not be voting away property for special causes or partisan journalists.
> If we recall history, the issues around 1776 were in response to an unaccountable parliament taxing colonists without adequate representation.
You're equating taxation with coercion, to justify unelected, unappointed individuals forcibly changing how taxes are spent. Then somehow trying to make a connection to taxation without representation. When, in reality, the spending was made through representation, and this reversal of spending is being made without it. Look, just because you happen to agree with the autocrats doesn't make them any less autocratic.
I believe we can and we should "vote away property for special interests" like providing basic care for mothers and babies who might otherwise die, and therefore have no chance to experience either life or liberty. You're free to disagree on the "should", and we can have civil debate on that resolved through democratic means. But if you disagree on the "can", I'm afraid that's just authoritarianism cloaked in the guise of libertarianism.
Keep in mind that total US foreign aid has been less than 1.5% of the total federal budget going at least as far back as the year 2000. [1]
Since you bring up western liberalism and accuse me of illiteracy, I'll wrap up by quoting none other than J.S. Mill himself:
"Governments and nations have made mistakes in other things, which are not denied to be fit subjects for the exercise of authority: they have laid on bad taxes, made unjust wars. Ought we therefore to lay on no taxes, and, under whatever provocation, make no wars? Men, and governments, must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life." [2]
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-... [2] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm