Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy do not care whether the stories they tell about agencies are true. They’re useful for whipping up hostility to government so that regulations can be cut and the rich can do what they want.

Summary

Billionaires like Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy are spreading false claims to discredit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency protecting consumers from fraud and abuse.

Andreessen falsely accused the CFPB of politically motivated “debanking,” despite no evidence.

This rhetoric aligns with the “DOGE” project, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, which aims to slash government regulations and programs under the guise of efficiency.

Critics warn this effort will harm public services, benefit billionaires, and push privatization at the expense of ordinary Americans.

    • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
      26·
      6 months ago

      I’m not from the US, so I don’t care about your founders.

      History books, and biology as well mind you, actually say that the actions of a group of individuals working together have more power than those of individuals working alone, and in any coordinated effort there is a subsection of the group that takes care of the whole and marks the pace. Throughout history the civilizations that managed to thrive and leave their mark were those whose governing body was efficient and effective, and there’s no denying that. You may be able to wrangle your friends and coordinate them without a specific administrative role, but try doing that with a group of people surpassing the hundreds of millions and you will have a problem.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          6 months ago

          Ooooh nice, an enlightened Libertarian, and one that thinks that Americans are special, unique little snowflakes, different from the rest and immune to the rules that have historically governed the entirety of humanity for millennia

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              4·
              6 months ago

              Stopping your historical studies before things like the end of chattel slavery and the start of the industrial revolution seems like a bad idea. You might have missed one or two significant events.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  41·
                  6 months ago

                  You said this:

                  So sure, you didn’t literally use the word stop. You just decided any history post-the third quarter of the eighteenth century was moot. My mistake.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      22·
      6 months ago

      Pick up a history book

      Collective action (government) is the only thing preventing you from being ruled by someone else’s collective action

        • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
          14·
          6 months ago

          You were just arguing against this kind of government, but now you are all for it? Make up your mind. ‘the bill of rights’ means nothing without a government enforcing it.

          In any case, this shows just how ignorant you are to the world around you. Documents protecting the rights of the populace aren’t exclusive to the US, nor were they the first to write them, look up the magna Carta, written in medieval times; or the Hammurabi code, one of the first written legal documents that protected the weak and the vulnerable.

          What’s more, most countries today also have these protections written in their respective constitutions, so this whole “the US is special” talk is just propaganda you ate

            • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
              6·
              6 months ago

              Again, most countries have these protections as well. The USA is not special in this regard. Most countries have a document detailing the rights and duties of the people along with the obligations and limits to the state. And obviously, these documents are intrinsically linked to the government and would fail to prove valuable in its absence. In layman’s terms, you can’t have your bill of rights ‘protecting people from the government’ without having a government in the first place, as the mere document itself is a product of governance and part of the social contract

                • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  6 months ago

                  I appreciate your understanding, though I’m inclined to disagree. Of course I get the historical context in which they were written, but that doesn’t make it exceptional. You say in the US you have emphasis on personal freedom and protections against government overreach, but many countries would pride themselves as well in their take about it. Even so, in the USA your police officers can detain you on a whim declaring possible suspicion and confiscate your belongings if they so wish. You speak of personal freedoms, yet you still have stricter laws compared to my country in some cases, like drinking, gambling and prostitution or even jaywalking. Or the existence of HOAs, that despite not being governmental agencies themselves, they are adjacent and speak of aspects of american life that are more regulated than in other countries. You also have eminent domain in the USA, where the government can legally force you to sell your land.

                  And we can keep on comparing examples on how life differs based on countries, but to get back on track, the american constitution and its accompanying bill of rights are not inherently more ‘free’ than any other countries constitution. Even more so when you take into account that many countries’ constitutions were based partially on it, which itself was based on Roman law.

                  I understand how important they are to american speaking points, though, you said it best when you said it was an integral part of your perceived self image. But that doesn’t detract from the reality that people in the USA aren’t intrinsically ‘more free’ or have more freedom just because they are american, there are plenty of countries with comparable levels of rights and government overreach.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              3·
              6 months ago

              The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which, btw, is part of the Constitution, so that’s redundant) are just pieces of paper. The only reason they mean anything is because of the implicit threat of violence/force by the state. It’s literally the way society exists.

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  Right, and whoever has more raw power wins. That’s what it really boils down to, that’s real politik. Shitty, but that’s how it is. Because if you don’t participate, the other people will straight up just kill you and take your land.

                  And who has the most raw power here, the largest (by far) military in the world? Or…? That’s the “natural order” that fascists want. “Might makes right.”

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      69·
      6 months ago

      The founders would routinely rape their slaves and participated in scalping. They were day drunk all the time because one of the best ways to clean water was to make it into beer. They didn’t believe in bathing, they thought washing the grime off would let the bad airs in and make them sick.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        41·
        6 months ago

        They were day drunk all the time because one of the best ways to clean water was to make it into beer.

        I need to take issue with this part because that is simply not how things worked. The ale that was being made at the time (and had been made and drunk by people for centuries before then) instead of water had an extremely low alcohol content. Even a small child would have to drink a LOT to get tipsy.

        It was generally drunk the day after it was brewed, so it didn’t really have ages to ferment into a potent alcoholic drink. People did drink to get drunk, of course, but drinking small ale/small beer rather than water was not how they did it.