4 ms·
It's entirely legitimate that the division of authority between a state gov't and smaller entities be different from that between states and the Federal gov't.
by linksnapzz 10y ago
It's entirely legitimate that the division of authority between a state gov't and smaller entities be different from that between states and the Federal gov't. These are not the same thing. For instance, I think that municipal broadband is a great idea, but I also respect that states have the authority to stop cities and towns from doing it, so long as that is allowed by the state and federal constitution.
It's possible to not want the same policy when it would be executed in a vastly (intrastate/interstate) different context.
Also, "Business is hard, let's destroy freedom and build a one-party state!" is an obnoxiously reductive non-sequitur, disrespectful of arguments made upthread, and not really deserving of a civilized response. HN rhetoric at its finest.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>It's entirely legitimate that the division of authority between a state gov't and smaller entities be different from that between states and the Federal gov't. It's plausibly legitimate: I can imagine possible worlds where it works that way for a good reason. I just find it hard to imagine I live in such a world, and it's vastly more plausible that here in real life it's a class-based partisan power grab. Many of the bag fees and minimum-wage rises haven't even been passed by Party X: they've actually been ballot initiatives. So "partisanship" isn't even an adequate excuse. We really are looking at state legislators directly overriding the will of the voters because they don't like the outcomes.