> Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? Yes, through democracy. Sure we can disagree with our government as well

> Ah, "we". This must be the way to go because "we" made the decision together, right? Yes, through democracy. Sure we can disagree with our government as well as with our governments structure, but the fact is that "we" make decisions. In short, "we" are in this together. > People get to the top and stay there by being good at something. The fact that they're rich by definition means that their company is doing something that people find valuable and doing it better than the alternatives. I agree, but I would argue that there is no person or company which would totally and permanently cripple the US economy by leaving. There are some examples which would cause a very difficult adjustment period, but we would overcome. > Economic activity is not driven by the government No, the government does not drive the economy but in the best scenario can act as a reliable GPS guidance system or in the worst an annoying backseat driver. The trick is to walk a thin line between the two. > destroying the private sector is a recipe for instability. Probably, but who wants to destroy the private sector? > Sure, but why would you intentionally give them more reasons to leave? I actually don't agree with the parent comment and would never suggest creating laws just to make people leave...there's enough of that going on now. I just think that _fear_ of someone leaving is unhealthy at best.