They know the judges won't let anything bad happen to their friends so they can pretend to act tough every four years (when the billionaire class's preferred candidate/party is in office of course).
I don't understand people like you. A government agency does something material to help the consumer and you just shit talk and resort to base cynicism. Nothing would ever change if everyone was as apathetic as you are.
This defeatist attitude is unhelpful. Are you prepared to lose nearly everything come November? What will you do when the dictatorship looms over you, will you accept your dwindling freedoms? What would cause you to actually stand up for yourself and fight for a better future? I see this attitude espoused a lot and I wonder if any of the people who say so will just roll over and accept a creeping totalitarianism with a shrug. Is there literally anything at all that you'd be proactive about?
If you have causes you are passionate about but you refuse to participate in the (hard won, bloodily won) civic right of voting, then your ability to affect those causes will evaporate. No matter how much you think your government doesn't care now, they will care even less when it is truly, wholly, dictatorially unaccountable to you. And then what? What was your anti-voting stance for?
A substantial chunk of the electorate seems to prefer losing and then whining about outcomes as long as it allows them to pat themselves on the back for 'staying above it all and seeing the futility all along'. I implore you instead to care, hold your officials accountable, and vote. A bad future is not inevitable.
Dictators can actually get something done for you, I'd prefer that to our current anarcho-tyranny.
"Francis's term "anarcho-tyranny" refers to armed dictatorship without rule of law, or a Hegelian synthesis when the state tyrannically or oppressively regulates citizens' lives yet is unable or unwilling to enforce fundamental protective law."
Can you describe precisely why you think the US meets this definition? Given that these terms are meaningful only in a relative sense, it’d be useful to hear your explanation as a comparison between e.g. Mexico, Somalia, Russia, or whatever other comparisons you find salient.
> Dictators can actually get something done for you, I'd prefer that to our current [x]
the historical track record of that sentiment is both plenty long and plenty awful. Are you ignorant of that history or dispute it or think it’ll be different this time or what?
Given that you chose to quote from a noted white supremacist scholar, it is likely fair to assume that you fall on the same side as the hypothetical impending dictatorship. In that case, sure, the dictatorship will get something done for you. Until of course the leopard comes to eat your face as well. Also in that case, I can see why you promote your narrative of helplessness, since it will hasten the arrival of your glorious new era.
A lot of people (domestic but especially foreign axis of evil countries) want us to feel discouraged this way so we'll stop voting and let MAGA win, because they aren't going to stop anytime soon.
All regulation has a cost. And if based on the track record of the US government, it tends to be high and even potentially introduce weird incentives that solve one problem but create two more.
Lack of regulation has costs too. I’m open to your argument if you can demonstrate somehow what “tends” to be true. I suspect you can’t, and neither can I, which is why we should assess regulations on a case by case basis of their own merits instead of totally unsupportable “regulation good” or “regulation bad” maxims.
Anti-trust has a proven record of making things less shit. It doesn't work if you don't use it, obviously. Courts are unfortunately not built for your instant gratification.
When it comes to holding corporations accountable for their actions, very little actually does ever change. Our entire system treats business/corporations with kid gloves, and it's not a partisan issue that will change with a different party in control.
DOJ has been filing aggressive antitrust cases throughout the Biden administration’s tenure. If you want to be conspiratorial, you can point to their losing record in court and argue they know the cases will fail, but “it’s an election year” doesn’t make sense. I think the realistic take is the people at DOJ are legitimately enacting the strongest antitrust enforcement they can get away with (and then some).
The FTC leadership has made a number of strange (and in my opinion poor) decisions, beginning with insulting and alienating the agency staff, which had experience that the political appointees lacked. They then proceeded to act without regard to previous agency experience. At this point, it seems like they’re just trying to get their political goals back on track, though it seems a bit late, given that administrations are generally most effective at their beginnings.
There is a great deal of documentation and discussion, but this document covers some of it, here are a couple of on-topic quotes:
>"Documents from and testimony by FTC managers show that Chair Khan marginalized the litigators and investigators at the FTC who had the skills necessary to win cases."
>"One manager consulted with his team and reported to
the Chief of Staff that Chair Khan was “[s]capegoating the career staff for the FTC’s ‘underenforcement’ of the antitrust laws”26 and “contributing to an external narrative that denigrates staff.”"
I wouldn't read too much into this document. It's written by one of the most egregious political hacks on the planet: Jim Jordan. Even in this report, he can't resist using the classic "Democrat" epithet at the tippy-top of page 5 [1]. Jordan also subpoenaed Khan after the FTC took action against Elon Musk—Republicans' second-favorite billionaire they'll defend at all costs.
This document reads like political theater because it is political theater.
Apparently career staffers don’t like Khan. You know; the career staffers that, checks notes, have been at a largely ineffectual FTC for decades. Oh well, at least she’s trying.
They know the judges won't let anything bad happen to their friends so they can pretend to act tough every four years (when the billionaire class's preferred candidate/party is in office of course).