Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 483 posts

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#451

Post by jfengel »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #448
sangnoir wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I'm being overly cynical - but isn't this just a tactic to consolidate the gains he managed to win by discouraging the other side from using his methods? Similar to how challengers decry bureaucracy, but once they become incumbents, wield it as a cudgel to swat down upstarts.

Precisely. He got his tax cut; his pendulum swung so far to his side that Joe Biden is seen as a liberal candidate. He's advocating for a comfy middle ground cuz he's won the war and now wants peace and quiet

He also has a Supreme Court that will give him everything he wants for the rest of his life, and considerably following.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#452

Post by jfengel »

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #305
pjscott wrote: post #266

I looked a bit at what Charles Koch has been saying recently, and this doesn't look like a change of opinion; it looks like a change of tactics. He's de-emphasizing the partisan tug-o-war stuff, which looks less promising now than it did during (for example) the early days of the Tea Party, and focusing on the less fought-over parts. It's a reasonable approach if he wants to get things done, but not the about-face th…

>In July 2015 Charles Koch and his brother were praised by President Obama and Anthony Van Jones for their bipartisan efforts to reform the criminal justice system.[67][68] For roughly a decade Koch has been advocating for several reforms within the prison system, including the reduction of recidivist criminals, easing the employment process for rehabilitated persons, and the defense of private property from asset fo…

His brother funded both the New York dinosaur and Smithsonian human evolution exhibits, both of them excellently done, and featuring evolution front and center.

I note, however, that the Smithsonian put their climate change exhibit immediately outside of their human origins exhibit with his name. I've always wondered if that was some kind of dig.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#453

Post by danans »

harimau777 wrote: post #295
CryptoPunk wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The problem is that the Libertarianism/free-market policies simply don't work. They've failed to address the growing inability to normal people to have financial security and a reasonable quality of life. At some point, continuing to advocate those policies in the face of their outcomes becomes negligence at best.

> They've failed to address the growing inability to normal people to have financial security and a reasonable quality of life.

But that's not a goal of Libertarianism. If anything, it if that problem were addressed, it would be an indication of Libertarianism's failure to meet its Social Darwinist objectives.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#454

Post by defterGoose »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #298
mrgordon wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep some philosophers described it as “freedom to” and “freedom from”. Without freedom from others doing some things that effect you, you might be dead or otherwise severely restricted

Yes people not understanding positive and negative freedom is the major educational failure behind the libertarian meme.

It's a basic feature of the growth-at-all-costs financier mindset. A complete and total misunderstanding of closed vs open systems, zero sum games, and "innovation".

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#455

Post by medium_burrito »

aniro wrote: post #410
Xixi wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current trajectory of temperature increase is at least 4~5°C (rather optimistic) in 2100, which would mean that a pretty wide area surrounding the equator will, year-round or for significant parts of the year, have a wet-bulb temperature at or above 35°C. It is the limit at which human life (and mammal life in general) is entirely impossible, due to over-heating. That unlivable area will include most of India, In…

I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that "lack of rice" (and lack of clean water) is going to be a major issue whether we build out nuclear or not. I think humanity is in for a dark couple hundred years. The window hasn't closed, but we are hard pressed dealing with all the wrong fights and time is losing. The less "1000 year tail of disaster" opportunities we can have available when things start to unravel the…

Yeah, I think grandparent and parent are spot on.

Look at the current wave of government collapses and civil wars that are exacerbated by the current crisis (ethiopia, peru, bolivia, argentina, zambia, etc.). It will be way worse.

Then think about places that are relatively safe, ie Europe, and relatively easy to migrate from the ME and Africa to. That's 500+M people trying to make their way over. That spells serious unrest in Europe too. And that's not even talking about Vietnam's sand mining catastrophe.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#456

Post by js2 »

chub500 wrote: post #438
js2 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originalism is fine in theory when coupled with judicial restraint. However, in practice, it has become justification for big-C Conservative justices to actively impose their views, overriding the democratic legislative process. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2017/08/how-determinate-is-original... We're not going to settle this in the comment section of HN, but I happen to agree with this opinion: As the Warren and early B…

I don't practice law but it seems obvious to me how one would make rulings about marriage laws before and during Obergefell v. Hodges. One of the central tenants of originalism is using words/language according to their original meanings (within reason). Since when have we understood marriage to include same sex? Long after these laws for marriage were put on the books in many cases. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m…

I never made any argument about whether or not Obergefell v. Hodges is activism. You should read the 5-4 decision yourself and decide whether or not you think it is.

My personal opinion is that I don't care whether others think it's (liberal) activism.

My beef is that Alito is also engaging in (conservative) activism but claiming he is not by hiding behind originalism. I won't belabor this point further because I've already cited a source that makes the argument better than I can.

Disclosure: I want our government to use every tool at its disposal to make the world a better place. Of course the constitution should be interpreted in line with modern values in order to extend rights and protections to people. The declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Those are our stated shared values. Those align with my values. Not allowing gay people to marry is contrary to those values.

That five judges found a constitutional justification to extend the right of marriage to all, I'm glad for. If people want to call that "activism" so be it. Now, Alito still wants to take that right away. Indeed, he wants to be able to express that view and not be called a bigot for it. I find it deplorable to try to hide that view behind a legal theory called originalism.

Any originalist argument against "Obergefell v. Hodges" could equally be applied to "Loving v. Virginia."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/constitutional-interpreta...

https://ahousedividedapd.com/2020/10/15/originalism-and-the-...

For a counter-argument (with which I don't agree):

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#457

Post by aniro »

Xixi wrote: post #414
aniro wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that "lack of rice" (and lack of clean water) is going to be a major issue whether we build out nuclear or not. I think humanity is in for a dark couple hundred years. The window hasn't closed, but we are hard pressed dealing with all the wrong fights and time is losing. The less "1000 year tail of disaster" opportunities we can have available when things start to unravel the…

How do you make cement (and by extension concrete)? Limestone calcination: CaCO3 → CaO + CO2 The world concrete production is a larger source of GHG than the entire world fleet of trucks used for goods transportation, with some margin. And that's only accounting CO2 emitted by the chemical reaction itself, not even accounting for the production of the energy necessary for the reaction, that often comes from natural g…

There are a whole host of issues that stem from industrialization that are complex and require organized and disciplined action in order to contain. Cohesive action by the entire community of industrial nations is just not on the table at this point without some absolutely massive dislocation of economics or political power. Force is going to be required for change or desperation is going to force compliance. I can only assume based on history that this will all come to force of arms before any other rational solution (systemic enough that it will a difference) is pursued.

I just don't see any road forward without a horrifying body count. It is not impossible to avert that future, it just seems vanishingly improbable.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#458

Post by floor2 »

ninkendo wrote: post #440
zests wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see a poll where this comment gets presented without context and people have to decide what group it is describing.

What exactly is the big nefarious power in the background whipping the liberal mob into a frenzy? I get that you want to come off as an enlightened centrist here but you’re gonna have to be specific. What’s the liberal Koch brothers and what’s the liberal Tea Party?

George Soros and BLM?

The funny thing is that "whipping the liberal mob into a frenzy" is a literal thing that happened this year that resulted in riots, looting, civil unrest and a full on "autonomous zone" in Seattle.

To my knowledge, the only real harm the Tea Party accomplished was rolling back environmental/emissions regulations.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#459

Post by NobodyNada »

pjc50 wrote: post #430
bredren wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We saw this in the Portland mayoral race. The only on-ballot challenger to the incumbent used political tactics that overcame what would normally be exclusionary credentials. It was so successful, I was taken aback by it. At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric. The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my ba…

For those of us following along from outside Portland, who are you referring to?

(Presumably) Sarah Iannarone, who declared herself "the Antifa mayor" during her campaign. She lost to incumbent Ted Wheeler.

Re: Charles Koch Says His Partisanship Was a Mistake

#460

Post by ponker »

redis_mlc wrote: post #345
bredren wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We saw this in the Portland mayoral race. The only on-ballot challenger to the incumbent used political tactics that overcame what would normally be exclusionary credentials. It was so successful, I was taken aback by it. At one point I had a chance to speak with the candidate by phone, and I spoke about my concerns about the divisive rhetoric. The candidate said it was only something they had to do to "fire up my ba…

> my concerns about the divisive rhetoric. When you have a two-party system, you get binary outcomes - ie. divisiveness. It doesn't even make sense to expect something else.

The divisiveness is a consequence of the primary system, not the two-party system. The primary system is very new, only here since 1972, but the fact is that 1) the power to nominate candidates should have never been handed to the voters, and 2) now that it has been, it is impossible to revoke. The "strategic" aspect of nominating a candidate closer to the center, to capture as much of the political spectrum as possible, is impossible to coordinate with individual voters but very easy to execute by party insiders.

Without primaries, Barack Obama would have never been President but Donald Trump wouldn't have been either.

Post reply on HN