3 ms·

Your argument was: "Given all the tools that are at a politicians disposal, it actually is rather hard to stop all the paths a city can use to participate in th

Your argument was: "Given all the tools that are at a politicians disposal, it actually is rather hard to stop all the paths a city can use to participate in this kind of thing since a lot of it is based on what they do everyday." My agument is simply that a law could be passed, which would mostly solve the problem. Now you're saying 'well a law has to be passed'. Yes. Of course. It has to be passed. But if a law is passed, and it certainly could ... then there's little politicians could do to get around it. Your argument about 'politicians can do a lot' - of course they can if they are free to do as they please. Nobody is debating that 'politicians can give subsidies if they want'. "It's hard to make ego illegal" Again - no it's not hard at all. Just literally make it illegal to subsidize, and then it'll stop. Obviously that's no small feat.

protomyth 8y ago
Look, I saying that there is no way a law is going to get passed and there is a very high likelihood that such a law would be ineffective due to the basic nature of the powers a city needs to govern itself. I gave an example of another such law (H1B) that is worked around when its scope is even stricter than the governing of a city and the powers needed for such. It's very easy to make subsidizing individual companies illegal. was your original statement. Now we have Just literally make it illegal to subsidize, and then it'll stop. Obviously that's no small feat. The crafting of such a law without destroying the governance of a city is an amazingly hard problem to which I have not seen one city, state, or petition that has attempted it.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "and there is a very high likelihood that such a law would be ineffective due to the basic nature of the powers a city needs to govern itself" I think this is not true. You haven't made any reasonable arguments in this regard - i.e. haven't demonstrated how a) the law could not be enforced or b) how the city needs to subsidize in order to function A law banning direct corporate subsidies would work really well. "The crafting of such a law without destroying the governance of a city" I totally disagree. Cities generally do not directly subsidize businesses. As for getting the law passed, yes, I'm with you there. Very hard. It couldn't be done at a state level because states compete, so it'd have to be done at the national level.

protomyth 8y ago

Look, I saying that there is no way a law is going to get passed and there is a very high likelihood that such a law would be ineffective due to the basic nature of the powers a city needs to govern itself. I gave an example of another such law (H1B) that is worked around when its scope is even stricter than the governing of a city and the powers needed for such. It's very easy to make subsidizing individual companies illegal. was your original statement. Now we have Just literally make it illegal to subsidize, and then it'll stop. Obviously that's no small feat. The crafting of such a law without destroying the governance of a city is an amazingly hard problem to which I have not seen one city, state, or petition that has attempted it.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"and there is a very high likelihood that such a law would be ineffective due to the basic nature of the powers a city needs to govern itself" I think this is not true. You haven't made any reasonable arguments in this regard - i.e. haven't demonstrated how a) the law could not be enforced or b) how the city needs to subsidize in order to function A law banning direct corporate subsidies would work really well. "The crafting of such a law without destroying the governance of a city" I totally disagree. Cities generally do not directly subsidize businesses. As for getting the law passed, yes, I'm with you there. Very hard. It couldn't be done at a state level because states compete, so it'd have to be done at the national level.