ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU, HIS CHOSEN ONES. FRIDAY NIGHT AGAIN, EH? FEAR NOT – ZARDOZ IS HERE TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT. FIRST UP, THE CHOSEN ONES WILL ONCE AGAIN RECEIVE SUPERIOR ADVICE FROM ZARDOZ. ONCE THE BRUTAL “DEAR ABBY” HAS BEEN DISPATCHED, THE GIFT OF THE LINK WILL BE GIVEN.
Q: I am 25 and have been with my boyfriend on and off for five years. I love him very much. I often overthink things, and a constant frustration of mine is that he makes no romantic gestures at all. He drowns me in compliments and shows his love in other ways.
I always have to take the initiative and suggest he do romantic things like send me cards or flowers, take me to dinner, etc., but he only does them when I ask. It doesn’t feel like enough for me. I worry that when we get married, over time I will grow bored or no longer be attracted to him because he is so unromantic. Am I just overthinking? What should I do? — ROMANTIC ONE IN AUSTIN
A: EVIL DEMANDING BRUTAL! IF YOU REQUIRE STIMULUS OF THE CARD, FLOWER AND SUSTENANCE VARIETY TO REMAIN “ATTRACTED” TO THIS BEARER OF THE EVIL PENIS… GIVE UP NOW. CEASE ALL PENIC ACTIVITY WITH HIM, AND LET HIM FLEE FOR THE HILLS. PERHAPS HE CAN BE SALVAGED AS A GRAIN SLAVE, OR A BRUTAL EXTERMINATOR, SHOULD HE BE EMBITTERED ENOUGH.
“ROMANCE” BRUTAL EXTERMINATOR STYLE.
ZARDOZ HAS SPOKEN.
Q:My brother is my best friend. He is also an alcoholic. It runs in our family, and he has been addicted for years. His drinking has affected me in several (minor) ways over the years, but I have always taken a hands-off approach, knowing I can’t force him to get help.
Well, his drinking is starting to affect my life in a more severe way now. I joined the local police force. I am afraid that my brother’s behavior could cost me my job if I’m seen with him while he acts out, or if I try to defend him.
I love my brother fiercely, and I don’t know what to do anymore. I feel like I need to avoid him, but I love him. Please help. — CHALLENGED IN THE EAST
A: SOME BRUTAL EXTERMINATOR YOU ARE… THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THIS BROTHER-BRUTAL IS…CLEANSING. THIS WILL HAVE THE SIDE EFFECT OF BURNISHING YOUR EXTERMINATOR CRED. NOW THAT YOU HAVE JOINED THE RANKS OF KILLERS, YOU MUST SHOW YOU FIT IN.
BYE-BYE, BRO.
ZARDOZ HAS SPOKEN.
ZARDOZ APPRECIATES YOUR STYLE, IF NOT YOUR INTELLIGENCE.
UR DOIN’ IT WRONG, M8. IF THAT WAS AN ATTEMPTED CLEANSING, YOU HAVE NOTHING LEFT YOU ARE GOOD FOR EXCEPT GRAIN SLAVERY.
ZARDOZ WOULD BE MAKING POPCORN…IF HE COULD. AND IF HE ATE. AND IF HE HAD HANDS.
Howdy, howdy. I hope everyone is enjoying the WAWR post. Today it was “Desigining Great Azure Solutions” by M$. Gotta keep up with the certifications for one more cycle and then I can hopefully retire to management where I won’t be the type who says “the way we used to do it is…”. The good news is, I didn’t make any major mistakes with the way I did the one that got me the experience. The bad news is, I still have to pass stupid M$ tests. On the homefront, I got the makings for a NYE barbecue. 7.5lb of brisket, 2 racks of baby back ribs, 2 sausages. I will be doing black-eyed peas instead of the more traditional (to the Texas barbecue I will be cooking) pinto beans. Holy meat coma, Batman.
Jezebel writers gather in FL near me. (I’m goin’ to hell for that one)
Its crazy how the world has changed. A tour bus full of Vietnamese tourists was bombed in Egypt. I’m glad I got to see it when I did, although all too briefly. My driver for one excursion was a Coptic Christian. He had an interesting take on things (in 2010). My favorite part was when we were driving back to the hotel, there was a big rally?protest? I asked him what was going on, he says, “Oh that’s a thing for Mubarak. Even if he steps down, it’ll just be his son who takes over.” I said deadpan, “yeah, we never have sons take over for their fathers in America.” He laughed his ass off at that.
One of the few benefits of the pain-in-the-ass called “relocation” is the occasional discovery of something one possesses but had forgotten. In my case, it was one of my favorite books from my childhood, covers missing, pages yellowed and tattered, thumbed through to nearly the point of collapse, but still readable and delightful. Curtis MacDougall‘s Hoaxes is a classic, ranking with Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Randi’s Flim-Flam in the category of “books to help you develop a healthy cynicism.” Put aside MacDougall’s idiot politics, the guy could write and do real research.
SugarFree
The menu that Cracker Barrel Typhoid Mary handed me. Ugh.
My reading once again, has been limited by what I read my four year old.
This month’s entry is Shel Silverstein’s classic, The Giving Tree. It is a touching story on the surface, but upon closer examination is a cautionary tale about the moral hazard of the welfare state. The story begins with a boy playing with a tree but inevitably, time plays its terrible curse upon the boy and the tree. The boy grows and no longer has interest in the tree. The tree notices the boy coming by less often, but when he does, she finds the boy is missing something. The boy first has no money, but the tree offers the boy her apples. Now this is act of pure kindness on the tree’s part, and also an important lesson missed by the boy. The apples you see, were meant to be sold in the market for a profit so the boy was able to have spending money. Given the utter lack of overhead costs incurred by the boy, any apple sold was sold for a profit. The boy then makes the mistake of spending all his money foolishly.
His mismanagement of the tree’s gift is evident because the next time the boy comes to the tree for help, he is in need of a house. Perhaps he knocked up some girl and needed a house. Who knows? Ultimately, if he had been a better steward of the tree’s gift of her apples, he would have used the profits from the apple sales, and applied those towards the startup for another, more profitable venture. At the very least, the profits could have been used towards a down payment on a house. Given he had no money tells me it was spent on women and booze, because he now had a family and was once again asking the tree for help. She offers her branches to build a home, and probably a shabby one at that. Apple trees aren’t exactly known for their high strength wood, unless this was some kind of magic tree.
Clearly, the boy made a mistake in who he married, because the next time he comes to the tree for help he wants to get away and have an adventure. Between his debts and his dilapidated home, I would want to get away from everything too. The tree once again offers the boy help by allowing him to chop down her trunk, and use it to make a boat. Boats are nothing more than a hole in the water filled with money if you ask me. The tree apparently was happy, but not really.
Behold! The Welfare King upon his throne.
The story concludes with the boy comeing back to the tree as an old man. Surly, broken down—he can’t even chew on apples anymore out of disgust for his poor decision making. The tree inevitably offers the only thing left she can as a stump, and offers the boy a place to sit his lazy ass down.
The lesson here is the moral hazard of the welfare state. The tree gives selflessly, and the boy takes advantage of her generosity by stealing everything she is worth—even in death. A better course of action would have been to give the boy the apples as a loan. How do you pay back a loan to a tree? I don’t know, maybe the tree could’ve loaned the apples with the stipulation the boy plant a dozen of those apples somewhere. Something, anything really to instill upon the boy the apples he is selling to spend on hookers and booze was not his to begin with. The smartest course of action, being that he could clearly sell apples, is to plant more trees. Then the tree wouldn’t be so damn lonely for one, being surrouded by other trees, but the boy would have a larger supply of apples to bring to market. Perhaps even plant a few more trees, and entire orchard of trees, and become de facto king of the magical apple tree forest. That never occurred to the creepy bearded, bare-footed Silversteen. Obviously, because he wanted you to believe it was better to give everything to everyone, especially the undeserving.
Ayn Rand would’ve had an epic, 96 page field day with this.
jesse.in.mb
Coming off a rough few months and finally getting a chance to do some reading. I finally finished the Lies of Locke Lamorra which I mentioned a quarter ago. It got better after where I was at before, but I’m not sure I’m going to pick up the next book in the series. There were open questions, but the tale itself comes to a satisfying close.
Jeff Wheeler’s Storm Glass is another first book in a series. I *might* pick up the next one. The blurb made it sound like an impressively hamfisted parable for modern socioeconomic disparities set in a roughly steampunk (English, not wild-west) setting, but it was more enjoyable than the blurb made it sound.
The Shadow & Bone trilogy (also apparently called the Grisha trilogy) is again a vaguely steampunk set of novels reminiscent of The Legend of Kora. The setting is overtly Russian and at about the end of the tsarist era, but in this universe some people are born to manipulate aspects of the world around them and some people are just fodder for the constant wars at play. There were a few points in the series where the story faltered, but the cadence kept me reading and I put down 2.5 of the books in a day-and-a-half.
Currently reading Roadside Picnic, but I’m barely through the foreward so it’ll have to wait until next time.
SP
I have been reading self-help and how-to books this month.
”How to Relocate AGAIN and Stay Married”
”Creative Arson: When You REALLY Can’t Pack One More Box”
”Toss It! (Grandma’s dead, she’ll never know you gave her ‘heirlooms’ away)”
“How to Get Moving Quotes Without Talking to Humans”
“Nobody Needs 23 Kinds of Wine: Throwing Packing Parties to Reduce Your Cellar”
”Do the Math, Or Is it Cheaper to Replace All Your Household Goods Than Move Them?”
“Ikea is Everywhere: Why Move Your Furniture?”
Brett L
I read to unwind, and after a hell of a month of November, I dove into a whole crapload of books this month. Not all of them great, but several pretty quality reads.
I started with Gears of the City by Felix Gilman. I’ve had a pretty serious literary crush on Felix since reading The Half-Made World. Gears is a sequel to his 2007 book Thunderer. in the first book, a man named Arjun came to The City looking for his God, who had left Arjun’s monastery quiet and empty. The City contains hundreds of gods, and Arjun gets tangled up with two in particular, one a god of rot, water, and death; the other a god of flight, wind, and freedom. Many hijinks ensue and we leave the first book with Arjun going to The Mountain to look for his god. But the The City and The Mountain are mystical places, not really fixed or Euclidean in space or time. The second book picks up with Arjun having been spat out by The Mountain with a hazy set of memories. Short version is, the first book is great, the second one’s reach exceeds its grasp. I really wanted to love it, but it tied up too many things too neatly. Still loads of great characters and imaginative encounters, just not as sexy.
After that came something lighter — the 4th installment of Drew Hayes’s NPC series (officially Spells, Swords, & Stealth series according to Amazon, but the first one was NPCs). Anyhow, this is I guess, LitRPG genre? There are two interwoven stories in the series. One is that the characters in the DnD-style game are actually in existence somewhere and controlled by people in our plane. The other is a group of NPCs who form a party to save their little town. I think its a fun series. Has some original twists and turns. Hayes does a good job between just shrugging his shoulders at some things (adventurers take stupid risks. its what they do.) and really nice world building on the other. Some of the characters include a gnome paladin of the god of minions, a half-orc wizard, and a former player-controlled character who should have died on a natural 1 roll but instead became an NPC.
I also read the first two books of the Books of Babel series, Senlin Ascends and Arm of the Sphinx. The first book was wonderful steampunk. The second was not as original or lyrical, but moved the story along. A slightly older schoolmaster named Senlin takes his new bride to the Tower of Babel for a honeymoon (think steampunk technology, trains, some electricity, lots of steam engines) and immediately gets separated in the crowd. Thereafter begins his quest to reunite with his wife, in which he discovers that his morality is fluid, and he will do whatever it takes to get back to her. The second book takes Senlin to the mysterious Sphinx who seems to run and repair all of the automation for the tower. Senlin makes a deal to get closer to finding his wife.
I also read a short story from Mark Lawrence in the Nona Grey universe called Bound. Lawrence continues to be one of my favorite writers, but $3 for 16k words is at the edge of my price range for anybody. Only read it if you are caught up on the Jorg/Red Queen and Nona Grey books and are waiting impatiently for the next book to drop.
Finally, I started the Expanse books by James SA Corey. I don’t know why I hadn’t read them before, since space opera is absolutely my jam, but I had not. Nor have I watched any of the series on Syfy/Amazon. I really feel cheated that I haven’t been reading this all along. Although given the sheer number of novels and novellas in the series, it would be great if someone could tell me when to pull the ripcord so I don’t become bitter and disillusioned.
Vacation time is almost over and by over I mean traveling back home from the in-law’s. Hopefully sloopy and I can get one night out together before we leave.
Damn the news is slow, I’m going to have to end this shorter than usual. That’s all I got today. I’ll leave you with a song and then move on with my day.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. -Exodus 20:17
It is interesting to note that the Tenth Commandment and final commandment is the only statute of the Decalogue that is concerned with an internal desire as opposed to an outward action. (Arguably you could claim the first is as well but that is a discussion for another forum) The author of the Ten Commandments, whether you believe it to be God or Moses or someone else entirely, thought purging envy from ones inner being to be a moral imperative worthy to be listed alongside prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness. The reason, I believe, is because envy is a destructive force that left unchecked destroys the envious and wreaks havoc on those around them.
Winston Churchill famously said:
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
We Glibs repeat this creed daily in various ways as we comment on the avarice, greed and base human instincts that drive all things political and particularly as we see those vices on full display in the antics of the progressive/socialist left. Envy’s various manifestations can accurately be assumed to be the underpinning passion that motivates left-wing ideology.
But what is envy? I think Kant’s definition is probably the most precise:
“Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune.” (The Metaphysics of Morals 6:459)
It is necessary at this point to distinguish between envy and jealousy as the terms are often confused in common usage. Viewed through the lens of the Stoic passions; delight, lust, fear, and distress; jealousy differs from envy in that jealousy is rooted in fear whereas envy is rooted in distress. Jealousy requires three parties; the subject, the rival and the beloved. Jealousy is the fear of the subject losing the affections of the beloved to the rival. More simply put, it is the fear of losing what we have, or what is within our power to possess, to another. Using the word strictly within the confines of its definition would relegate its application almost entirely to interpersonal relationships. Envy, on the other hand, is a two-party relation consisting only of the subject and the rival. This distress is an irrational contraction on the part of the subject toward the rival. At its core it is the belief that one is inadequate in comparison to another. It is a self-applied judgement. While it could certainly be argued that jealousy has as many roots in distress as it does in fear, it is quite clear that envy is not fear-based as the subject stands to lose nothing to the rival because they do not possess the object in question. It is an irrationality arising solely from comparison. We may say “I’m jealous of my neighbor’s car” but in reality, unless he somehow outcompeted you for it, we are envious rather than jealous as we never were in a position to possess that particular car in the first place.
So we see manifestations of envy everywhere and indeed deal with our own irrational envious impulses hundreds of times daily. Some psychologists differentiate ‘good envy’ (I want my neighbors car so I’ll emulate my neighbors actions in order to obtain one of my own) from ‘bad envy’(I want his specific car or, short of that, I don’t want him to have it). I reject the notion of ‘good envy’ on the grounds that aspiration and emulation are perfectly consistent with rational self-interest and it does not seek to deprive the rival of anything. It is a concept in need of a term of its own. Envy, as I see it, is entirely negative and harmful. It is the irrational impulse to deprive someone else of something they have to thus alleviate one’s own sense of inferiority.
A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot. Ps 14:30
I think the analogy of envy as rot is accurate. Once the irrational belief that another needs to be deprived to satisfy our own insecurity manifests itself, it becomes all-consuming, spawning all kinds of other soul-destroying passions. As Walker Percy said, “it consumes and twists our logic until nothing but itself makes sense.” In an attempt to rationalize our irrational passion we must justify our base desire to deprive others in order to feel adequate. We must convince ourselves that the rival somehow deprived us of what is rightfully ours. From this twisted logic we see all the other negative passions grow from the seed of envy; hatred, enmity, greed, anger, malice, vexation, depression, sadness, despondency, and on and on…
Eric Hoffer identified in his seminal work True Believer who is most susceptible to the ravages of envy;
“The weak are not a noble breed. Their sublime deeds of faith, daring, and self-sacrifice usually spring from questionable motives. The weak hate not wickedness but weakness; and one instance of their hatred of weakness is hatred of self. All the passionate pursuits of the weak are in some degree a striving to escape, blur, or disguise an unwanted self.”
Those consumed by envy have somewhere buried deep in their psyche a profound sense of inadequacy. Rather than aspiring to gain through emulation those things they do not possess, whether they be material, relational or moral, they seek to climb above their station on the backs of others, or at the very least drag them down into the mire with them. This sense of inferiority is so profound that the subject must alter their world-view to satisfy it. Sadly these altered world-views have given rise to ideologies which give shelter and comfort to the envious (I’m looking at you Karl Marx).
Again I’ll quote Hoffer;
“A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self.”
So we see myriad praises and excuses for envy dressed up in intellectual and garrulous finery. The subject is constantly reassured that their sense of inadequacy is natural, if not righteous. The moral obligation to combat their own passions is instead transferred to the rival who must be made to pay for their perceived superiority. Put even more simply, the rival is now responsible for the way the subject feels. The implications are terrifying when you couple a doctrine of envy with collectivism. The only acceptable outcome for the collective envious subjects is to see their collective superior rivals brought low and punished for the self-hatred the subject feels. Debasement or annihilation are the only thing that can satisfy the irrational contraction that spawned the ideology.
So what is to be done?
In regard to social-political movements, I have no idea. Envy is a part of the human condition and will rear its ugly head wherever human action transpires. I have little power to change anything other than myself.
I refer once again to the first part of the Psalm above;
“A tranquil heart gives life to the flesh, but envy makes the bones rot.” Ps 14:30
We cannot control what is in the heart of others, only what is in our own. I believe this concept is one shared by any worthwhile religion or philosophy. We subdue our passions through logic and morality. We recognize that the inadequacy we feel relative to the rival’s superiority is a logical fallacy. One can only aspire to be the ideal version of themselves and cannot possess the personage of another. We must recognize that envy is a purely destructive force and the first to be destroyed by it is the envious. Beyond logic, we have a moral duty to recognize that envy seeks to justify violations of the natural rights of others:
For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. James 3:16
If the source of envy is not recognized for what it is, we find ourselves going down the primrose path from envy to resentment, resentment to hostility and from hostility to action. The end result of unchecked envy is the violation of first principles if not the outright abandonment of them.
In my opinion, the opposite of envy is gratitude. This is no profound revelation yet the application is a constant challenge. When one takes stock of the blessings in their life and values them in the right order, contentedness takes the place of envy.
I write these articles to be instructed more so than to instruct, so perhaps some of you fine Glibs can propose how we might organize (or disorganize) society to combat collective envy?
“Don’t set your mind on things you don’t possess…but count the blessings you actually possess and think how much you would desire them if they weren’t already yours.” –Marcus Aurelius
Well, some days, its easy to be the hero at work. Today, two lines of javascript, taken almost verbatim from Teh Googles. Once upon a time programmers needed to actually know things. Now we have a global exo-brain that only requires that you know how search for things. Strangely, demand remains high. Oh well. Also, my kids have been home for six days and we have five more to go. So this is the one week each year I wish I had an office to commute to.
This is one bad-ass man. Not only is he the first to solo cross Antarctica, but he skied the last 80 miles in one 32 hour push. What were his plans after completing this feat of bad-assery? Oh, he’s just gonna hang around Antarctica alone for couple more days until the other guy who is making a solo crossing shows up. No mention of how much it costs for the special suit to keep his huge brass balls warm.
Why the hell would I bother to give deference to a damn evil oil (pronounced ohl) company? Well, Chevron deference has very little to do with oil, and nothing to do with genuflecting to a multi-national molester of Gaia. Chevron deference refers to the measure of how much a court should defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute when a case hinges on the ambiguity.
As a trivial made-up example, let’s say that an employment law states that the “most senior” employee in a department is entitled to wear a crown in the office, enforceable by the NLRB. (yes, it’s a stupid example… so sue me) The NLRB creates regulations about what a crown is, what wearing a crown means, how to break seniority ties, etc. Of interest to us is the fact that the phrase “most senior” is left ambiguous by the statute. “Most senior” may be interpreted to mean oldest by age. “Most senior” may also be interpreted to mean the longest tenure at the company. Assuming that there is no clear statutory guidance to resolve that ambiguity, it’s up to the NLRB to determine what “most senior” means as they enforce the statute. The NLRB creates a regulation stating that “most senior” is by age. Years later, Sandy, an employee of Top Hats R Us files a complaint with the NLRB about the company’s blatant violation of the crown law. The NLRB sues Top Hats R Us for violating the crown law. Top Hats R Us rebuts by asserting that they followed the crown law. They provided the crown to Latitia, who has the longest tenure at Top Hats R Us. The NLRB counters back that “most senior” means oldest, not longest tenured.
The court is placed in an interesting bind. How do they interpret the statute? Perhaps the court is inclined to agree with Top Hats R Us that “most senior” means longest tenured. Perhaps there’s some weight to be given to the NLRB’s interpretation of the statute given their administrative role. In Chevron v. A bunch of Hippies, the SCOTUS answered this question once and for all (lol).
If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit, rather than explicit. In such a case, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.
Well, this may seem like a pretty easy decision for a libertarian. Either an agency gets to define the terms, or the people get a say in the interpretation of the terms. This takes some of the power out of the hands of the government. It’s very easy to over simplify the libertarian view on Chevron deference as “bias toward the agency means bias toward big government.”
However, this line of thinking is wrong! Chevron deference is a separation of powers issue that requires a deeper analysis than a superficial “government bad”drive-by. If you view Chevron deference in the lens of administrative agency v. private citizen, you’re already heading down the wrong path. Chevron deference is about establishing the border between the executive branch and the judicial branch. It’s not overreaching administrative agency v. abused private citizen. It’s overreaching administrative agency v. overreaching activist court. This is Marbury v. Madison type stuff. Ilya Somin writes:
As a general rule, deference to agencies tends to promote a pro-regulatory agenda, whether of the right or of the left. But there are notable cases where it might instead promote deregulation. It is worth remembering that Chevron itself deferred to a Reagan-era agency EPA policy that liberals thought did not regulate industry stringently enough. The plaintiff challenging the agency was the Natural Resources Defense Council, a prominent liberal environmentalist group. Ironically, Neil Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was the EPA administrator at the time the lawsuit began. The fact that his mother’s agency ultimately won the case evidently has not prevented Gorsuch from wanting to overrule it.
The separation of powers argument against Chevron deference is a strong one. Critics claim that the judicial branch unconstitutionally abdicates its judicial power when it defers to an administrative agency. Somin explains:
Article III of the Constitution gives the judiciary the power to decide “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.” Nowhere does the Constitution indicate that federal judges are allowed to delegate that power to the president or to the bureaucrats that work for him in the executive branch.
The legislature makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws. To be mixing and swapping these powers between branches is to undercut the fragile balance crafted by the founders. Cutting down to the core issue at hand, when the enforcement power of the executive branch requires some minimum amount of interpretation of the statutes that it enforces, how much of that interpretation is covered under the umbrella of the enforcement power, and how much is subject to reinterpretation by the judicial branch using their interpretation power? Justice Gorsuch has a very simple answer… all of it is subject to reinterpretation. This seems on first blush to be a fairly obvious statement. Where a branch is, by necessity, stepping on the toes of another branch, it would seem obvious that the other branch would have power to override the decisions of the overreaching branch. Chevron runs against that simple principle, thus Chevron is bad law.
Well, you may ask, how is this even a controversy? It seems fairly cut and dried. It’s not.
The Court [in Chevron] gave three related reasons for deferring to the EPA: congressional delegation of authority, agency expertise, and political accountability.
Who haven’t yet been implicated in this mess? The legislature. Yeah, without the legislature passing crappy laws that are ambiguous and rely on administrative bureaus to do the real legislating through regulation, this wouldn’t be an issue. Yes, the legislative branch is the source of the mess that is Chevron deference. The reason for this will become clear later, but let’s just say for now that the legislature isn’t stupid, they know exactly what they’re doing when they pass these vague, crappy laws.
Going back to the stated reasons for deference to agency interpretations, a problem with this scheme is that one of the factors is based on a fiction. Political accountability? Not necessarily so says Randolph May:
Chevron itself involved a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency, an executive branch agency. With regard to executive branch agencies like EPA, or, say, the Departments of Commerce, Labor, or Transportation, it may be natural, as Justice Stevens did, to refer to the “incumbent administration” and to invoke the chief executive’s direct accountability to the people.
But not so with the so-called independent agencies like the FCC, SEC, FTC, or the NLRB, with their potent brew of combined quasi-executive, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial powers. Unlike the single heads of executive branch agencies who may be terminated at will by the president, the independent agencies’ members serve fixed, staggered terms. And the prevailing view is that they may be fired by the president only for good cause.
There are strict rules for holding agencies politically accountable, especially the independent agencies. The President, on a whim, cannot clean house at the EPA or the SEC. These bureaucrats may be even more fully insulated from the political winds than the judicial branch… a branch set up to specifically be insulated from politics.
Quickly addressing agency expertise, I’ll say that as a person who has to deal with an expert agency on a daily basis (the USPTO), agency expertise is vastly overrated. If you trust the cop pulling you over to know his 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, then maybe this “agency expertise” thing works for you, but for those of us in the real world, it’s laughable that the bureaucrats at these various alphabet soup agencies could be called “experts.”
Another motivation discussed by the case was Congressional delegation. Can Congress even delegate their lawmaking authority? Is that Constitutional? Facially, no:
The non-delegation doctrine, grounded in the separation of powers, arises from the very first word of the Constitution, after the Preamble: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ….” (emphasis added). Taken at face value, that clear a statement would seem to preclude much of the “lawmaking” that goes on every day in the 300 and more executive branch agencies to which Congress over the years has delegated vast regulatory authority.
However, FDR, riding on the coattails of Woody “The Real Lizzy Warren” Wilson and Teddy “Bloodthirsty Sociopath” Roosevelt (go read about them), did a number on the Constitution with his judicial intimidation tactics, including the non-delegation doctrine. Hell, how are these independent, legislatively controlled executive administrative agencies allowed to exist? Well, when you scratch the paint away, you’ll find a “living Constitution” argument:
[This idiotic law review article] contends that the Founding Fathers made the Constitution flexible enough to meet administrative exigencies and did not intend to leave the enforcement of all laws to the President
Remember, “flexible enough” means that we get to ignore the plain text meaning of the Constitution, and “did not intend” means that “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” in Article II of the Constitution does not actually mean all executive power, but only the executive power convenient to the totalitarian left. More seriously, there’s a good article here on the subject.
Getting back to the subject at hand, current law says that the legislature can delegate their lawmaking responsibilities to executive and independent administrative agencies on a limited basis, and the agencies are tasked with executing intentionally ambiguous statutes laid out by Congress. This actually shifts the core question a bit. What if the administrative agencies aren’t interpreting the law nor executing the law, but actually making law? *shudder*
I actually think that this is the closest interpretation to the truth, and I think it highlights what’s actually at the root of the problem. Chevron deference is merely a diseased branch on a rotten tree, the trunk of which is legislative abdication of responsibility. The judicial branch should excise the headless fourth branch of government wholecloth, and should slap the legislature back to the 19th century. The political accountability for laws rests on Congress. The expertise as to the meaning of the law rests on Congress. The delegation of authority by Congress is unconstitutional, and the court’s unwillingness to tell Congress to do their damn job is what is creating this issue with Chevron deference. It’s time for the Supreme Court to bring back the non-delegation doctrine!
Stay tuned during this next court session. Perhaps we’ll see a bit of power stripped away from the unconstitutional administrative branch. It’d be the first step away from handing unfettered power to these technocratic abominations in nearly 80 years.
The Finnish language and cultural concepts can be difficult for some people to understand. Luckily, I am here to help.
The Polar Bear, universal symbol of the meaninglessness of lifeThe Awkward Sauna, a feeling of dehydrated arousalThe Finnish Flag; or the universal symbol for bicuriousness in the rest of ScandinaviaThe Reindeer, “Help me, I am dying. Please send medical aid.”The Intoxicated Horse, “Help me, I am dying. Please send medical aid.”The Bonfire, the specific sadness that there is only one person of color left to burn to death.The Chorus, “The older men are now ready to be orally violated.”Bipolar Disorder, a condition that worsens as you approach The North Pole.The Ringed Seal, most often encountered on dating sites, indicates the user is only sexually attracted to sea mammals.Coal Licker, “My bipolar disorder can only be cured by licking coal.”The Whimsical Swastika, often used on dating sites to indicate a lack of interest in dating either of the Jews in Finland.The Forest Half-Vulva, “I want to go almost all the way to third base with you in the woods.”Sock and Sandals, “I am experiencing suicidal thoughts.”The Penis Wizard, “I am a dead-eyed penis wizard.”The Frozen Heart, “I must mourn my loved one that froze themselves to death in a suicide crevasse, please wait until next Spring before asking me out.”Murder Boat, “I have been or are about to be murdered on a boat. Please contact the authorities.”
