8 ms·

This is outrageous. Texas and other republican states boast about small government and unparalleled free speech, and they go ahead and prevent people from boyco

by m_a_g 5y ago

This is outrageous. Texas and other republican states boast about small government and unparalleled free speech, and they go ahead and prevent people from boycotting another state. They have no business doing that and this is absolutely ridiculous.

skohan 5y ago
It's just bizarre. What's Texas' compelling interest in punishing the boycott of foreign state? If I were a Texan, and I found out that my state government is potentially over-paying contractors based on a completely irrelevant criteria to the work, I would not be pleased.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  For the most part the folks who continue to call themselves Texans don’t seem to actually care about things such as logic or freedom, only about reinforcing whatever it is they have been told to reinforce on that day. I feel bad I wasted so much of my life in such a place, but happy that I didn’t contribute my money to them because of their own inane policies.
  - FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    Not to defend Texas, but every federal contract contains the same language. That's just as true if you live in San Francisco.
- leeroyjenkins11 5y ago
  It's a strategic ally in the region. US strong support of Israel was the foundation of the Abraham accords that got several major players together and provide stability. The government also does this with domestic companies. There are contractor criteria that requires companies to meet political goals. I guess the question is, does a company have a right to a government contract? I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. It doesn't stop those companies from operating, but they don't get public funds. If they don't like it, they can leave for a state that's ok with their boycott. Or the people can change the legislators out.
  - kthejoker2 5y ago
    > I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. You can "say" this all you want, but in fact states do not have this right: their criteria can't violate individual Constitutional rights. If their criteria said "whites only" or "you can't support gay martiage" the issue would be the same: there is nothing special at all about which specific freedom the criteria violates.
  - skohan 5y ago
    This doesn't make any sense to me. The government is working for the citizen, the citizen is not working for the government. It should not be the individual citizen's responsibility to respect the strategic interests of the state in a liberal society however strong they may be. I mean if it's relevant fine: like if the project is to provide security to Israeli diplomats by all means make this a hiring consideration, but for a contractor in Texas?
easytiger 5y ago
They aren't banning it. They are saying they won't do business with anyone involved in such things. That's not remotely the same.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Government doesn't get to do that - it's a de facto punishment for the use of First Amendment-protected speech. This is why the KKK gets to adopt highways. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/georgia-kkk-adopt-a-highway-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/georgia-kkk-adopt-a-highwa...
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  "They aren't banning being black. They are saying they won't do business with anyone involved in being black. That's not remotely the same." Your logic is deeply flawed.
  - easytiger 5y ago
    Can you demonstrate how that statement is equivalent?
    - kthejoker2 5y ago
      The logic is equivalent, both are clear violations of civil rights.
      - easytiger 5y ago
        People can choose to do business with whomever they want.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
FridayoLeary 5y ago
Doesn't this law only apply to businesses? I don't see any reason why companies should have the same level of free speech as individuals.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  An individual owning the company has rights. Contracts are only open to companies, not individuals. Ergo, those individual rights are infringed.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    The awarding of contracts is not a right of an individual. All a government has to do is ensure they have got the best deal in a legal way. Ergo, no individual rights have been infringed.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      Not a right to be awarded but a right to bid/be considered, certainly.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Texas isn't really a republican stronghold state and hasn't been since pretty much ever (anything before the "southern strategy" is political prehistory at this point IMO). Texas has always had more of a "moralizing authoritarian" bent to its government (comparable to say, the caronlinas, which usually get saddled with that reputation) at least for the past century. There are other states that are far better at being small government (and they aren't generally considered republican strongholds either) The reason Texas has a small government reputation is because most people analyzing it can look out their overton window and see CA and NY.

by m_a_g 5y ago

skohan 5y ago

It's just bizarre. What's Texas' compelling interest in punishing the boycott of foreign state? If I were a Texan, and I found out that my state government is potentially over-paying contractors based on a completely irrelevant criteria to the work, I would not be pleased.

ramraj07 5y ago
For the most part the folks who continue to call themselves Texans don’t seem to actually care about things such as logic or freedom, only about reinforcing whatever it is they have been told to reinforce on that day. I feel bad I wasted so much of my life in such a place, but happy that I didn’t contribute my money to them because of their own inane policies.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Not to defend Texas, but every federal contract contains the same language. That's just as true if you live in San Francisco.
leeroyjenkins11 5y ago
It's a strategic ally in the region. US strong support of Israel was the foundation of the Abraham accords that got several major players together and provide stability. The government also does this with domestic companies. There are contractor criteria that requires companies to meet political goals. I guess the question is, does a company have a right to a government contract? I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. It doesn't stop those companies from operating, but they don't get public funds. If they don't like it, they can leave for a state that's ok with their boycott. Or the people can change the legislators out.
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  > I would say the elected government of a state has the right to define the criteria for it's contractors. You can "say" this all you want, but in fact states do not have this right: their criteria can't violate individual Constitutional rights. If their criteria said "whites only" or "you can't support gay martiage" the issue would be the same: there is nothing special at all about which specific freedom the criteria violates.
- skohan 5y ago
  This doesn't make any sense to me. The government is working for the citizen, the citizen is not working for the government. It should not be the individual citizen's responsibility to respect the strategic interests of the state in a liberal society however strong they may be. I mean if it's relevant fine: like if the project is to provide security to Israeli diplomats by all means make this a hiring consideration, but for a contractor in Texas?

easytiger 5y ago

They aren't banning it. They are saying they won't do business with anyone involved in such things. That's not remotely the same.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Government doesn't get to do that - it's a de facto punishment for the use of First Amendment-protected speech. This is why the KKK gets to adopt highways. https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/georgia-kkk-adopt-a-highway-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/georgia-kkk-adopt-a-highwa...
kthejoker2 5y ago
"They aren't banning being black. They are saying they won't do business with anyone involved in being black. That's not remotely the same." Your logic is deeply flawed.
- easytiger 5y ago
  Can you demonstrate how that statement is equivalent?
  - kthejoker2 5y ago
    The logic is equivalent, both are clear violations of civil rights.
    - easytiger 5y ago
      People can choose to do business with whomever they want.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

FridayoLeary 5y ago

Doesn't this law only apply to businesses? I don't see any reason why companies should have the same level of free speech as individuals.

ComputerGuru 5y ago
An individual owning the company has rights. Contracts are only open to companies, not individuals. Ergo, those individual rights are infringed.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  The awarding of contracts is not a right of an individual. All a government has to do is ensure they have got the best deal in a legal way. Ergo, no individual rights have been infringed.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Not a right to be awarded but a right to bid/be considered, certainly.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Texas isn't really a republican stronghold state and hasn't been since pretty much ever (anything before the "southern strategy" is political prehistory at this point IMO). Texas has always had more of a "moralizing authoritarian" bent to its government (comparable to say, the caronlinas, which usually get saddled with that reputation) at least for the past century. There are other states that are far better at being small government (and they aren't generally considered republican strongholds either) The reason Texas has a small government reputation is because most people analyzing it can look out their overton window and see CA and NY.