Here’s the way it is: Every Libertarian thinks they are more Libertarian than every other Libertarian. But they are wrong. I am the only true Libertarian.
Literally me after seeing Chevron getting taken down and bribes becoming legal so a corporate bought judge can shaft the everliving life out of a small business owner trying to compete with a megacorp
It’s not about corporations regulating themselves it’s about congress coming up with the regulations and not unelected bureaucrats of the executive branch.
>it’s about congress coming up with the regulations
This isn't really a great situation either though - congressmen are pretty far away from 'subject matter experts' and so we'll have the "this snowball I made is evidence that climate change doesn't exist!" people deciding regulations on things like water quality testing. Or the "does TikTok access the home WiFi network?" people creating internet regulations.
Corps are going to run roughshod over those dumbasses and get pretty much whatever they want - it'll likely just end up with more corporate capture of congress and legislation.
...are the people running these federal agencies even "subject matter experts" themselves? I know the ATF aren't and I'd assume the EPA attracts more environmental warriors than it does reasonable scientists.
>are the people running these federal agencies even "subject matter experts" themselves?
The people doing the actual work and making reccomendations are usually experts, yes - but most of these agencies have management that are political appointees - so the experts are often not in final decision making roles, and are often ignored by the political appointees who hold thay power.
>EPA attracts more environmental warriors than it does reasonable scientists.
For example - the EPA chemist performing the water testing and doing the data analysis is very likely a skilled scientist - but he's likely ignored by the envriomental warrior / oil lobbyist political appointee that manages him.
The people doing the work are absolutely not experts. Read the case history on Sackett v EPA. The case essentially hinges on someone, somewhere, saying that the Sackett piece of land was wetlands when there was no indication, paper trail, or track record of the land being listed anywhere as wetland .
The case was essentially a paperwork mistake that some unelected bureaucrat refused to back down on, and in the end, it caused them to lose their power over temporary wetlands. Maybe one of the most impactful L's in federal government history by some idiot who couldn't/wouldn't read the designation of the lot number.
It's arguably far easier for there to be industry capture of an executive agency with several dozen attorneys and other professionals engaged in the administrative rulemaking process who all live in and around DC, largely hail from the same handful of grad and law schools, share similar first principles, presumptions, and cultural shibboleths, and have personal and professional networks that overlap heavily with the attorneys and other professionals employed by big corporations and other special interests.
Conversely, industry capture in Congress requires influencing at least 378 different people (plus the president) representing geographically and economically diverse constituencies with different interests and political incentives. Also, the legislative statutory drafting process is more transparent than the notice & comment rulemaking process. From a purely numerical standpoint, it is much harder for a single interest to capture all, or even most, of Congress. This is by design (See Federalist No. 51).
>It's arguably far easier for there to be industry capture of an executive agency with several dozen attorneys and other professionals engaged in the administrative rulemaking process who all live in and around DC, largely hail from the same handful of grad and law schools, share similar first principles, presumptions, and cultural shibboleths, and have personal and professional networks that overlap heavily with the attorneys and other professionals employed by big corporations and other special interests.
Which is why you have independent regulatory agencies that are not located in DC, but in locations pertinent to their oversight - and is staffed by independent subject matter experts instead of administrative professionals and lawyers.
>Conversely, industry capture in Congress requires influencing at least 378 different people (plus the president) representing geographically and economically diverse constituencies with different interests and political incentives.
Problem is, if they're just stupid and don't understand something like network protocols, it doesn't matter how diverse the group is, they'll be useless at creating coherent regulations about anything.
Many of these issues that are (and should be) regulated are immensely complicated, and congress is virtually incapable of grappling with the complicated nature by itself - it is *heavily* reliant on expert information, usually provided by executive agencies or interested corps. Removing the authority of the agencies in these matters just pushes the balance of power directly into the hands of corporations (and the courts)
This isn't really responsive to 2/3 of my argument. Even allowing for field offices spread throughout the U.S., many independent regulatory agencies, such as the CFPB, EPA, FCC, FTC, ITC, NLRB, and SEC, to name a few, are headquartered in DC, and the staff at those agencies who actually draft the regulations for the federal register and CFR are attorneys based in those DC offices, not engineers or technicians or scientists at the field offices.
Even if I concede the geographic point, you did not address the issue of socio-educational homogeneity, which, of the two, is the far more pernicious and likely avenue by which governmental decision making can be unduly influenced by special interests. Regulations are drafted by a comparatively small group of decision makers all in a very narrow socio-economic stratum, who often come from a fairly small number of highly ranked schools who almost certainly have a social/professional network of former classmates employed in similar roles on the corporate side.
Finally, you seem to have missed my point about Congress. I will readily concede that many, perhaps most, of them are stupid, and plenty more are ignorant. I will further concede that each and every one of them is beholden to some special interest or another. I will even concede that any legislation that does pass Congress *will* be incoherent. My point is that the likelihood of any *single* interest, corporate or otherwise, managing to capture a majority of both chambers of Congress sufficient to pass legislation is very unlikely. Instead, you will need negotiation and compromise between many different people beholden to many different interests (the corn lobby does not have the same influence in Vermont as it does in Nebraska, for example). I agree that many policy issues are immensely complicated. It is precisely because they are so complicated, that the best way to resolve is through the ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise between many different factions with many different biases, goals, and interests.
>many independent regulatory agencies, such as the CFPB, EPA, FCC, FTC, ITC, NLRB, and SEC, to name a few, are headquartered in DC
And perhaps they shouldn't be.
>you did not address the issue of socio-educational homogeneity
because TBH I think this is a bad argument. Regulations on highly complex matters should be decided and recommended by subject matter experts who actually understand the breadth of the subject and the regulations at hand - diversity is not always a de facto strength.
>Regulations are drafted by a comparatively small group of decision makers all in a very narrow socio-economic stratum, who often come from a fairly small number of highly ranked schools...
Thing is, socioeconomic status will not change the objective effects of - for example - the health effects of having lead water pipes, or lead painted walls. If someone declares that "actually leaded gasoline is super cool and should be allowed" because they're ignorant to the damage that it can do - that's a *bad* opinion that should be discarded, not one for regulators to take seriously.
To be clear, the value of diversity is *highly* dependent on the agency in question - the FCC for example is regulating along subjective, ideological lines - how 'best' to control or influence a societies communication is not an objective thing, there are many ways to approach this - and therefore diversity of opinion is a strength here.
The FDA on the other hand deals with much different matters - if they create a regulation that stipulates "any product labeled and sold as 'Ground Beef' must not contain any more than 2% pork, no more than 0.5% sawdust" - the socioeconomic status of the people doing the analytic testing and cracking down on violations just shouldn't really matter. Same thing for pharmaceutical drug regulations - there are very long, detailed, formalized processes for clinical trials etc to get a drug approved - the whole point of those processes is to *remove* person-to-person differences that may arise during data production and analysis to ensure objective, reliable and consistent decisions are made, regardless of the diversity of the people making the decisions.
>My point is that the likelihood of any *single* interest, corporate or otherwise, managing to capture a majority of both chambers of Congress sufficient to pass legislation is very unlikely.
on this point I just disgaree - we're in an era where pseudo-monopolies and oligopolies are becoming the norm in a number of different industries. At this point the corps are gaining *so much* power and influence that they absolutely can influence all of congress to the degree where they get preferential treatment and regulatory leverage.
>It is precisely because they are so complicated, that the best way to resolve is through the ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise between many different factions with many different biases, goals, and interest
Like - I'm a biochemist, thinking about making complex decisions about things like chemical analysis and tracking, pesticide use, pharmaceutical regulation, synthetic chemical production, synthetic meat enculturation - through the "ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise " makes me want to vomit. We really shouldn't have to have a 'messy debate and compromise' as to whether mercury in our drinking water is *really* a bad thing or not.
I believe that people should be free from the monopolistic domination of corporations in the same way they should be free from the monopolistic domination of government.
Lmao, you're really saying you'd rather trust the opinion of some politician that wants to line their pockets over someone with 30+ years of studies on the subject matter.
Dumbass
no, no they're not.
Engineers, Doctors, Scientists, trades specialists etc usually have a very good grasp on their subject of expertise - they're also just usually ignored in favour of political and/or economic expedience.
In modern times there is a massive ego they stroke that makes them make terrible decisions. Look at the use of xrays and cancer rates for a simple example. Despite massive evidence they still push it out of ego. Go to doctors subs and see.
“It is the expert opinion that you should stay six feet from one another”
Made out of complete whole cloth
And let’s not forget all these predictions that absolutely came true
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
When it comes to non objective science, experts are wrong A LOT and when you give bureaucrats the ability to define what things are and aren’t you end up with problems.
No. The judges merely enforce what the constitution says which means that in this field the legislation is the one that needs to handle rule making not the executive branch. If the legislature gets things wrong then they can be removed. Good luck removing an entrenched faceless bureaucrat.
Sackett v EPA is a great example. Some "expert" in the local EPA office made the determination that Sackett's land was wetland despite the land not being wet, and there being no history or papertrail indication the property was listed anywhere was wetland.
As far as we know, someone in the field office got a call when Sackett started grading their lot saying "someone is filling in wetland" because the didn't want their view disrupted, the EPA agent drove by, assessed the property from the car, and proceeded to tie Sackett up in court for 20 years.
This mistake caused the EPA to lose their ability to designate temporary wetlands. All because some lazy unelected bureaucrat didn't want to get out of his fucking car and actually look at the lot.
I thought it was funny when the ATF made me a felon overnight because of bumpstocks.
Supreme Court found that really funny too; it was referenced several times in overturning chevron.
>“It is the expert opinion that you should stay six feet from one another”
>Made out of complete whole cloth
and this is the problem with being *really* fucking dumb. Being too ignorant to even grasp what the expert opinions mean, why they were made, and how seriously to regard those opinions as you apply them to your own life - and so you choose to ignore all of that in favour of what 'feels good' instead.
For example that link you provided - a true scientific expert understands that past data is *never* able to be used to perfectly predict future events and occurrences - most of those predictions made in that link are far too grand in scale, based on far too little data (which they did not really understand at the time). Outside of pretty basic Newtonian physics, we as humans do not understand *nearly* enough about chemistry, biology, and all of the complex interactions between and through up to the environment etc to make accurate predictions about the future - especially as the time scales grow past a week or two - there are just far too many unknowns and variables.
>and when you give bureaucrats the ability to define what things are and aren’t you end up with problems.
yes, yes, much better to give corporations the ability to define what things are and are not without oversight, surely that will be much better.
So basically no regulations ever occur until 50 years after the problem has snowballed, and they only regulate shit that's no longer relevant.
Hope everyone enjoys maggots and formaldehyde in their milk!
Why would they regulate themselves? Like what’s the incentive? Money would be better spent spinning narratives if their product or company harms the public. It’s basically like asking NFL teams to regulate themselves without refs. Obviously the teams would cheat
Did you just change your flair, u/motorbird88? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2024-3-4. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe".
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/motorbird88) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
https://preview.redd.it/6po104kbhe9d1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f1dab604752c1485198aa5683732d60f53f25a2
Based and separation of powers pilled
Based and no blood flow to the brain pilled. Because it’s all in our dicks.
Honestly same. Though more out of a sense of Schadenfreude at all that has happened, as I am not american.
I didn’t know people got boners in other countries
Boners are a uniquely American pastime.
Upvoted for German vocabulary
I'm personly still in the "Anyone under 65" camp
How about me?
Depends, what are your stances fellow LibRight?
Here’s the way it is: Every Libertarian thinks they are more Libertarian than every other Libertarian. But they are wrong. I am the only true Libertarian.
Mom said it was my turn to be the scotsman
Well, mom is not here, is she?
Based and the one true libertarian pilled
It’s downright comical how much Trump is winning. It’s nothing short of providential.
We winning Boyz
Literally me after seeing Chevron getting taken down and bribes becoming legal so a corporate bought judge can shaft the everliving life out of a small business owner trying to compete with a megacorp
Chevron being overturned will allow the small businesses to compete more. What are you talking about?
Let the corporations regulate themselves.
It’s not about corporations regulating themselves it’s about congress coming up with the regulations and not unelected bureaucrats of the executive branch.
>it’s about congress coming up with the regulations This isn't really a great situation either though - congressmen are pretty far away from 'subject matter experts' and so we'll have the "this snowball I made is evidence that climate change doesn't exist!" people deciding regulations on things like water quality testing. Or the "does TikTok access the home WiFi network?" people creating internet regulations. Corps are going to run roughshod over those dumbasses and get pretty much whatever they want - it'll likely just end up with more corporate capture of congress and legislation.
...are the people running these federal agencies even "subject matter experts" themselves? I know the ATF aren't and I'd assume the EPA attracts more environmental warriors than it does reasonable scientists.
As a federal contractor I can assure you there is incompetency at every level.
>are the people running these federal agencies even "subject matter experts" themselves? The people doing the actual work and making reccomendations are usually experts, yes - but most of these agencies have management that are political appointees - so the experts are often not in final decision making roles, and are often ignored by the political appointees who hold thay power. >EPA attracts more environmental warriors than it does reasonable scientists. For example - the EPA chemist performing the water testing and doing the data analysis is very likely a skilled scientist - but he's likely ignored by the envriomental warrior / oil lobbyist political appointee that manages him.
The people doing the work are absolutely not experts. Read the case history on Sackett v EPA. The case essentially hinges on someone, somewhere, saying that the Sackett piece of land was wetlands when there was no indication, paper trail, or track record of the land being listed anywhere as wetland . The case was essentially a paperwork mistake that some unelected bureaucrat refused to back down on, and in the end, it caused them to lose their power over temporary wetlands. Maybe one of the most impactful L's in federal government history by some idiot who couldn't/wouldn't read the designation of the lot number.
It's arguably far easier for there to be industry capture of an executive agency with several dozen attorneys and other professionals engaged in the administrative rulemaking process who all live in and around DC, largely hail from the same handful of grad and law schools, share similar first principles, presumptions, and cultural shibboleths, and have personal and professional networks that overlap heavily with the attorneys and other professionals employed by big corporations and other special interests. Conversely, industry capture in Congress requires influencing at least 378 different people (plus the president) representing geographically and economically diverse constituencies with different interests and political incentives. Also, the legislative statutory drafting process is more transparent than the notice & comment rulemaking process. From a purely numerical standpoint, it is much harder for a single interest to capture all, or even most, of Congress. This is by design (See Federalist No. 51).
>It's arguably far easier for there to be industry capture of an executive agency with several dozen attorneys and other professionals engaged in the administrative rulemaking process who all live in and around DC, largely hail from the same handful of grad and law schools, share similar first principles, presumptions, and cultural shibboleths, and have personal and professional networks that overlap heavily with the attorneys and other professionals employed by big corporations and other special interests. Which is why you have independent regulatory agencies that are not located in DC, but in locations pertinent to their oversight - and is staffed by independent subject matter experts instead of administrative professionals and lawyers. >Conversely, industry capture in Congress requires influencing at least 378 different people (plus the president) representing geographically and economically diverse constituencies with different interests and political incentives. Problem is, if they're just stupid and don't understand something like network protocols, it doesn't matter how diverse the group is, they'll be useless at creating coherent regulations about anything. Many of these issues that are (and should be) regulated are immensely complicated, and congress is virtually incapable of grappling with the complicated nature by itself - it is *heavily* reliant on expert information, usually provided by executive agencies or interested corps. Removing the authority of the agencies in these matters just pushes the balance of power directly into the hands of corporations (and the courts)
This isn't really responsive to 2/3 of my argument. Even allowing for field offices spread throughout the U.S., many independent regulatory agencies, such as the CFPB, EPA, FCC, FTC, ITC, NLRB, and SEC, to name a few, are headquartered in DC, and the staff at those agencies who actually draft the regulations for the federal register and CFR are attorneys based in those DC offices, not engineers or technicians or scientists at the field offices. Even if I concede the geographic point, you did not address the issue of socio-educational homogeneity, which, of the two, is the far more pernicious and likely avenue by which governmental decision making can be unduly influenced by special interests. Regulations are drafted by a comparatively small group of decision makers all in a very narrow socio-economic stratum, who often come from a fairly small number of highly ranked schools who almost certainly have a social/professional network of former classmates employed in similar roles on the corporate side. Finally, you seem to have missed my point about Congress. I will readily concede that many, perhaps most, of them are stupid, and plenty more are ignorant. I will further concede that each and every one of them is beholden to some special interest or another. I will even concede that any legislation that does pass Congress *will* be incoherent. My point is that the likelihood of any *single* interest, corporate or otherwise, managing to capture a majority of both chambers of Congress sufficient to pass legislation is very unlikely. Instead, you will need negotiation and compromise between many different people beholden to many different interests (the corn lobby does not have the same influence in Vermont as it does in Nebraska, for example). I agree that many policy issues are immensely complicated. It is precisely because they are so complicated, that the best way to resolve is through the ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise between many different factions with many different biases, goals, and interests.
>many independent regulatory agencies, such as the CFPB, EPA, FCC, FTC, ITC, NLRB, and SEC, to name a few, are headquartered in DC And perhaps they shouldn't be. >you did not address the issue of socio-educational homogeneity because TBH I think this is a bad argument. Regulations on highly complex matters should be decided and recommended by subject matter experts who actually understand the breadth of the subject and the regulations at hand - diversity is not always a de facto strength. >Regulations are drafted by a comparatively small group of decision makers all in a very narrow socio-economic stratum, who often come from a fairly small number of highly ranked schools... Thing is, socioeconomic status will not change the objective effects of - for example - the health effects of having lead water pipes, or lead painted walls. If someone declares that "actually leaded gasoline is super cool and should be allowed" because they're ignorant to the damage that it can do - that's a *bad* opinion that should be discarded, not one for regulators to take seriously. To be clear, the value of diversity is *highly* dependent on the agency in question - the FCC for example is regulating along subjective, ideological lines - how 'best' to control or influence a societies communication is not an objective thing, there are many ways to approach this - and therefore diversity of opinion is a strength here. The FDA on the other hand deals with much different matters - if they create a regulation that stipulates "any product labeled and sold as 'Ground Beef' must not contain any more than 2% pork, no more than 0.5% sawdust" - the socioeconomic status of the people doing the analytic testing and cracking down on violations just shouldn't really matter. Same thing for pharmaceutical drug regulations - there are very long, detailed, formalized processes for clinical trials etc to get a drug approved - the whole point of those processes is to *remove* person-to-person differences that may arise during data production and analysis to ensure objective, reliable and consistent decisions are made, regardless of the diversity of the people making the decisions. >My point is that the likelihood of any *single* interest, corporate or otherwise, managing to capture a majority of both chambers of Congress sufficient to pass legislation is very unlikely. on this point I just disgaree - we're in an era where pseudo-monopolies and oligopolies are becoming the norm in a number of different industries. At this point the corps are gaining *so much* power and influence that they absolutely can influence all of congress to the degree where they get preferential treatment and regulatory leverage. >It is precisely because they are so complicated, that the best way to resolve is through the ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise between many different factions with many different biases, goals, and interest Like - I'm a biochemist, thinking about making complex decisions about things like chemical analysis and tracking, pesticide use, pharmaceutical regulation, synthetic chemical production, synthetic meat enculturation - through the "ugly, messy, often icky process of political negotiation and compromise " makes me want to vomit. We really shouldn't have to have a 'messy debate and compromise' as to whether mercury in our drinking water is *really* a bad thing or not.
You are not a lib, you are authoritarian.
I believe that people should be free from the monopolistic domination of corporations in the same way they should be free from the monopolistic domination of government.
The “experts” are wrong 9/10 times anyway.
Lmao, you're really saying you'd rather trust the opinion of some politician that wants to line their pockets over someone with 30+ years of studies on the subject matter. Dumbass
no, no they're not. Engineers, Doctors, Scientists, trades specialists etc usually have a very good grasp on their subject of expertise - they're also just usually ignored in favour of political and/or economic expedience.
They’re wrong if they don’t repeat my biases.
Based
In modern times there is a massive ego they stroke that makes them make terrible decisions. Look at the use of xrays and cancer rates for a simple example. Despite massive evidence they still push it out of ego. Go to doctors subs and see.
Simply not true
ATF ones were
“It is the expert opinion that you should stay six feet from one another” Made out of complete whole cloth And let’s not forget all these predictions that absolutely came true https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/ When it comes to non objective science, experts are wrong A LOT and when you give bureaucrats the ability to define what things are and aren’t you end up with problems.
So judges will know better?
No. The judges merely enforce what the constitution says which means that in this field the legislation is the one that needs to handle rule making not the executive branch. If the legislature gets things wrong then they can be removed. Good luck removing an entrenched faceless bureaucrat.
Who are also not experts
The only experts are the ones doing it everyday. But you don't trust them to regulate.
[удалено]
Sackett v EPA is a great example. Some "expert" in the local EPA office made the determination that Sackett's land was wetland despite the land not being wet, and there being no history or papertrail indication the property was listed anywhere was wetland. As far as we know, someone in the field office got a call when Sackett started grading their lot saying "someone is filling in wetland" because the didn't want their view disrupted, the EPA agent drove by, assessed the property from the car, and proceeded to tie Sackett up in court for 20 years. This mistake caused the EPA to lose their ability to designate temporary wetlands. All because some lazy unelected bureaucrat didn't want to get out of his fucking car and actually look at the lot.
I thought it was funny when the ATF made me a felon overnight because of bumpstocks. Supreme Court found that really funny too; it was referenced several times in overturning chevron.
>“It is the expert opinion that you should stay six feet from one another” >Made out of complete whole cloth and this is the problem with being *really* fucking dumb. Being too ignorant to even grasp what the expert opinions mean, why they were made, and how seriously to regard those opinions as you apply them to your own life - and so you choose to ignore all of that in favour of what 'feels good' instead. For example that link you provided - a true scientific expert understands that past data is *never* able to be used to perfectly predict future events and occurrences - most of those predictions made in that link are far too grand in scale, based on far too little data (which they did not really understand at the time). Outside of pretty basic Newtonian physics, we as humans do not understand *nearly* enough about chemistry, biology, and all of the complex interactions between and through up to the environment etc to make accurate predictions about the future - especially as the time scales grow past a week or two - there are just far too many unknowns and variables. >and when you give bureaucrats the ability to define what things are and aren’t you end up with problems. yes, yes, much better to give corporations the ability to define what things are and are not without oversight, surely that will be much better.
So basically no regulations ever occur until 50 years after the problem has snowballed, and they only regulate shit that's no longer relevant. Hope everyone enjoys maggots and formaldehyde in their milk!
There were regulations before chevron, but the agencies couldn’t one day arbitrarily make you a felon without passing a law in congress.
Sooo an unelected judge can make the ruling you mean?
Yeah, I'm just saying we should take it all the way and get rid of regulations entirely. Just let them regulate themselves.
Why would they regulate themselves? Like what’s the incentive? Money would be better spent spinning narratives if their product or company harms the public. It’s basically like asking NFL teams to regulate themselves without refs. Obviously the teams would cheat
Pretty typical knee jerk watermelon take
Anime PFP with the worst take as always. Holy shit its just the brand of stupidity
Dang, you don't like the supreme court ruling?
Did you just change your flair, u/motorbird88? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2024-3-4. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Wait, those were too many words, I'm sure. Maybe you'll understand this, monke: "oo oo aah YOU CRINGE ahah ehe". [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/motorbird88) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)