• ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    that’s what your politics are, you’re basically just politically homeless…and have been since you started calling yourself that.

    This, at least, is correct.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Welcome to the club!

      I’m there. I vote Democratic but there’s basically no representation for my views to be found.

      EDIT: Have you really thought through your political philosophy beyond pleasant sounding notions though? While “conserving the present” sounds nice, taken a bit further you’re basically talking about fighting the Buddhist notion that “no man steps into the same river twice”. Things change and if the government doesn’t change along with them it gets eaten alive. That’s partially, I would argue, what happened with technology in the last thirty years.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The government needs to adapt, yes, but carefully. You can’t just run with the first or second option, that’s a recipe for regulatory capture.

        It’s not “no change is good” but rather “most change isn’t good, so we need to test them until we find the best change”.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          The problem with that is it limits the government’s ability to change in ways that have no correlate in industry or culture. This inevitably leads to the government being unable to respond to changes that have already occurred or are currently occurring, and in the case of change driven by industry (i.e., most societal change in the US) that invariably leads to regulatory capture.