With Bureaucracy, Form Follows Function

Posted on August 4, 2025 by The Political Hat

“What a tangled web we create

“When we first practice to regulate!”

     There are few things in life more burdensome than red tape and bureaucracy. However, fixing this problem is easier said than done. It is a minimalist folly to think that the default is good and that regulation is a bad that can be removed by firing the regulators who interrupt good things from being good. No matter how many regulators your fire, the regulations remain and punishment for not getting regulator approval could easily come in arbitrary and capricious ways.

     Nor can you just fix things by demanding ten regulatory repeals for every new regulation.   Sometimes a regulation, such as in the form of agency/department guidance can clarify things and actually reduce the overall regulator burden. Similarly, hiring more people, particularly those who understand what they are doing, can reduce the regulator burden of those being regulated.

     Regulations are a tangled web, quite often, but must be taken apart stepwise and carefully.   That this is difficult is neither an excuse to do nothing nor an excuse to cut the proverbial Gordian Knot only to find out that that knot was there for a reason. A judicious application of Chesterton’s Gate (or Fence) would be the wisest path to regulatory reform and the optimal path to achieving the necessity of reducing bureaucratic shackles.

     The core root is the very regulator structure and the legally required scope it must encompass.   Without reforming that, something which no one is seriously talking about, any budget cuts, personnel firing, or meme-based “agencies” will be superficial in effect.

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (August 3rd, 2025)

Posted on August 3, 2025 by The Political Hat

 

News of the Week for August 3rd, 2025


Continue reading →

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (August 3rd, 2025)

Quick Takes – Not-so-medical Aid In Dying: Vermont via Zoom; Washington Qualified Providers; Condemned To Death By Artificial Intelligence

Posted on July 31, 2025 by The Political Hat

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Do you want a Butlerian Jihad? Because this is how you get a Butlerian Jihad

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

Death, Rx

     A nurse could proscribe your death over Zoom. Thanks technology!

“Vermont has repeatedly expanded its assisted suicide law since it first passed. Nonresidents are allowed to receive lethal prescriptions, and assisted suicide can be prescribed via Zoom or Skype.

“Now, a bill has been filed that would allow nondoctor “clinicians” to prescribe death. From H.B. 75:

“‘This bill proposes to authorize naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to participate in the processes established in Vermont’s patient choice at end-of-life laws. It would also allow naturopathic physicians to sign and issue do-not-10 resuscitate (DNR) orders and clinician orders for life-sustaining treatment’

“In other words, a suicidal patient would be able to access poison pills without ever seeing a doctor or having an in-person consultation or examination.”

Continue reading →

Posted in Healthcare, Progressives, Science | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Stakeholder Capitalism Isn’t

Posted on July 30, 2025 by The Political Hat

     Corporations. What are they good for? Limiting the liability of investors and owners who are innocent of any potential shenanigans, of course. An incorporated company limits the liability of a stockholder to the value of the stock rather than making each and every partial owner fully liable for anything done by anyone else involving the company. This is a good thing. But even with that, it is the stockholders company; they own it.   Stockholders elect Boards to act on their behalf and under their collective vote. A corporation itself does not have rights, but the stockholders through their elected representatives and those corporate officers chosen thereby that exercise their rights through whatever proxies are so approved.

     That is hos “Capitalism” works: Owners deciding how their assets are used and appointing representatives to take care of the particulars on their behalf. What isn’t “Capitalism” is “Stakeholder Capitalism” whereby a company must answer not to the people who own it, but to a more socially democratic voice of elitists playing a Fascist game of Corporatism. In such cases, these elitists rule over corporations via approved executives and business elite.

     This isn’t the free-market under the Rule of Law or the property rights of owners; this is the very Leftist face of Leviathan. Alas, even states known for limited or small government are not immune from the lure of the imposition of “Stakeholder Capitalism”. Sadly, Nevada is just such an example of this being able to happen:

“Nevada passed a law in 2017 that weakened shareholder primacy. The paper compares Nevada corporations before and after the law on a variety of measurements. It finds that after the law passed:

  • Corporate governance worsened in several ways:
    • More relatives of executives served on corporate boards.
    • Board independence and director attendance rates declined.
    • Auditors raised more concerns about accounting.
    •  Firms are more likely to be flagged by the SEC for their reports to that agency.
  • Shareholders had less ability to monitor corporations and take them to court over the worsening governance.
  • CEO excess pay increased, and the connection between CEO pay and performance weakened.
  • The valuation of Nevada corporations dropped relative to corporations in other states.
  • Corporations made more acquisitions, but they were viewed as lower quality by the markets.
  • Lenders viewed Nevada corporations as less creditworthy.
  • Corporations’ investment decisions are more discretionary and manager-driven.

“Perhaps most disappointingly for stakeholder capitalism activists, the ESG scores of Nevada corporations went down after the law was passed. The environmental score dropped by 7 percent; the social score dropped by 16.6 percent; and the governance score dropped by 15.4 percent. ‘The decrease in the Social score is the most direct evidence that stakeholders do not benefit from the Bill since this score incorporates how employees, customers, and the community in which a firm operates are treated by the firm,’ the paper says.”

     If top-down government dictates demonstrate anything, it is that everything gets worse, even the distance to their eschatonal goals. Stockholders have something tangible to gain or lose; for Stakeholders, it’s all tabletop game or LARP to mess around with as a lark.

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Stakeholder Capitalism Isn’t

The Untraditional Right

Posted on July 29, 2025 by The Political Hat

     When you reject “conserving” and embrace a “no rules” and reject “muh principles”, you do nothing but hollow yourself out and create a void that is quickly filled with what is readily at hand (i.e. the “praxis” of Critical Theory).   Remember what Sun-Tzu said about those who knew not themselves and you’ll understand how much of an own-goal that all is. As “Liberty Belle” explains, which is quoted in full below due to the limitations of Twitter/X embeds:

These people are bratty children. They’re ignorant of the intellectual traditions & metaphysical foundation that undergirds the American founding. Thus, they aren’t conceptualizing what it would mean for us all if we lose what makes us America. This is no masterclass, it’s a sad indictment of our society & our education.

Delusional like the Left, they think they can take the Constitution & cherry-pick what they want out of it, while disregarding the parts they don’t want. They want to appropriate affects of the American founding, while violating its ethos. They want its benefits, while lacking understanding of its mechanisms.

They have no moral anchor with which to ground their system. It’s all social constructivism. It’s utilitarian pragmatism, & Libido Dominandi— lust for power, & whatever is right or true is whatever is useful for their ends, the truth is evolving & socially constructed.

It’s a rejection of natural law & the universal character of inherent rights (applicable to all men, for all times) in favor of arbitrary application of various rules that suit their ends. It’s a complete rejection of the American founding.

But these young people being seduced by these stupid notions are like children— they cry when things don’t work out for them the way they want (“I don’t care about the Constitution” —> “I got fired for expressing my views, this is an injustice”). This is what children, or people incapable of second-order thinking do.

But, it’s also understandable how we’ve reached this place, when our educational system is put into context.

We aren’t taught what Classical Liberalism is, or its unique American strain. The term “liberal” (when we mean classically liberal) has been conflated with “progressive” (this was done intentionally decades ago), & the Left has had a decades (century, actually)-long head start on eroding American Classical Liberalism, thus deracinating us from our roots. We don’t even know what we have. When a people can be blinded to their birthright, they won’t cry out against its theft.

We need to teach people what it is that we must be fighting to preserve, & to understand how that translates to the things they value, & would mourn the loss of. If people can understand the value of something, they’ll fight for it, & when enough people do this, there will be enough force & momentum to make a difference, & to make the system work for us all.

I see it all the time, people ignorant of what the American founding stands for, & how it came to be, calling for the end of liberalism— while also proclaiming their right to freedom of speech & religion, right to own property, to bear arms & asserting state’s rights. They would cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Empowering “Family Friends” In California

Posted on July 28, 2025 by The Political Hat

     The California Legislature Grand Soviet is considering a bill, AB 495, involving custody of children who may have a parent subject to Federal immigration issues.   However, snuck in there is a provision expanding power over a child to “nonrelative extended family member[s]” who are empowered to “authorize medical care and dental care for the minor”.   Needless to say, in California “medical care” includes puberty blockers and transgender surgery. Furthermore, this directed “medical care” can not be rescinded by the state:

“The affidavit shall be valid until the parent, legal guardian, person having legal custody, or caregiver rescinds the affidavit.”

     But a parent could rescind this, right? Not if they’ve been deported. But even if the parent hasn’t been deported—or even legally deportable—these directive would stand indefinitely if the parent isn’t told about them! This act explicitly “imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access” with immigration being the fig leaf excuse. Oh, and proof of guardianship is not necessary: “A parent’s signature or seal or signature of the court is not required.”

     And just who are these “Nonrelative extended family member”?

“‘Nonrelative extended family member’ means any adult caregiver who has an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child or who has an established familial relationship with a relative of the child.”

     Further, nonrelative extended family members explicitly include:

“Extended relative, teacher/counselor, medical professional, clergy/godparent, neighbor, family friend, previously lived with or cared for the child, previously lived with or cared for a relative of the child.

“[…]

“‘Nonrelative extended family member’ for the purposes of item 6, means an adult caregiver who has an established familial relationship with a relative of the child, or a familial or mentoring relationship with the child. The parties may include, but are not limited to, teachers, medical professionals, clergy, neighbors, and family friends.”

     Now, a true family friend or neighbor may certainly gain legal guardianship through existing legal procedures and attendant requirements, but these requirements in this bill are so watered down as to be practically no existent. All a person has to do is show up with a kid, declare themselves a “family friend”, and then sign up said kid for “medical” care which is inclusive of gender transition treatments! This is clearly a backdoor way of circumventing parental rights.

     Some remember those old PSAs that showed a stranger driving up to a kid saying the kids parents are in the hospital and that they were “family friends” or similar, all in order to trick the kid into being kidnapped. This is like that except with the government aiding and abetting.

     Regardless of how much you may think that the current Administration’s tactics and policies regarding immigration are beyond that pale, that can not ever be a justifiable fig leaf for sterilizing and mutilating kids in the name of healthcare.

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (July 27th, 2025)

Posted on July 27, 2025 by The Political Hat

 

News of the Week for July 27th, 2025


Continue reading →

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (July 27th, 2025)

Firing Line Friday: The Problems in the Philippines

Posted on July 25, 2025 by The Political Hat

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     It seems rare these days for an intelligent debate on foreign policy to be had, especially between member of Congress from opposing political parties… on television no less! But let us look back forty years at such an intelligent discussion between Henry Hyde and Stephen Solarz, with William F. Buckley, Jr., who discuss the problems in the Philippines.

     Until next Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

     Due to a death in the family, there will be no posts for at least a week or two.

Posted on July 9, 2025 by The Political Hat | Comments Off on No Posting For A While

Wokeness And Cultural Hegemony

Posted on July 9, 2025 by The Political Hat

     “Cultural Hegemony” is a Marxist idea about how the oppressive elite impose their elitist oppression onto the masses. This is part and parcel of Marx’s own idea of “base and superstructure”.

     It is a worldview and analytical framework that imposes presupposed conclusions, and one which is increasingly adopted by not only the Left, but also the purported Right. It’s overthrow requires one to be “woke” about the systems of oppression as James Lindsay notes, quoted in full full below due to the limitations of Twitter/X embeds.

“People want a ‘simple’ explanation of ‘Woke’ that they can understand. There’s a problem, though. You cannot define ‘Woke’ without understanding the not-easy concept of ‘cultural hegemony.’

“You cannot understand Woke Left or Woke Right without understanding cultural hegemony.

“You cannot understand why Tucker Carlson is Woke Right without understanding cultural hegemony.

“You cannot understand why the post-liberal Right is Woke Right without understanding cultural hegemony.

“You cannot understand why CRT, Queer Theory, radical feminism, or all the rest are Woke Left without understanding cultural hegemony.

“You can reduce it down to identity politics, victimhood centrality/culture, cancel culture, smearing, mob abuse, a ‘based ritual’ or ‘Woke ritual,’ or whatever else, but you will never understand it until you understand cultural hegemony.

“Woke means having ‘woke up’ to the ‘realities’ of cultural hegemony. It is cultural Marxism or a kind of quasi-fascist reaction to cultural Marxism that plays on the same turf. When we say ‘Woke means having a critical consciousness,’ what it means is ‘having a critical consciousness of cultural hegemony.’

“Woke Left is therefore Left-wing Cultural Marxists, i.e., Left-wing Gramscians.

“Woke Right is therefore Right-wing Cultural Marxists by Reaction, i.e, Right-wing Gramscians or Right-wing Counter-Gramscians, if you want.”

      Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , | Comments Off on Wokeness And Cultural Hegemony