3 ms·

> You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. The evidence suggests otherwis

by duped 4y ago

> You're absolutely right that state sovereignty has been steadily eroding, and I posit that this is to everyone's disadvantage. The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people until the federal government forces them to stop by removing their power to do so. That doesn't mean the federal government is without issue, but it is the entity designed to protect liberties. I don't think this is a simple case of tort that could or should vary between states. It's about the freedom of individuals to choose who employs them and protecting them from those with power. The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens.

prottog 4y ago
> The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people States decriminalizing pot, for one, would be an example of state law trying to broaden liberties that federal law restricts. Or Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage long before the US Congress did anything about it. Or even at a smaller level, San Francisco city officials doing so before the state of California did. There's plenty of examples where a more local decision went in furtherance of liberties than a more distant decision, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that politicians become more enlightened and virtuous the higher up in the federation they go. > The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens. I'm not sure I follow. I think it's perfectly fine to let the fifty laboratories of democracy play this out, keeping the locus of control as close to the people as possible. The people of California have shown that the lack of noncompetes doesn't necessarily impede commerce or progress; the people of other states may learn from that and follow, or decide otherwise. And if those states that keep enforcing noncompetes do end up doing poorer for their people, they will change the law, or vote with their feet.

by duped 4y ago

prottog 4y ago

> The evidence suggests otherwise. When states wield their power on rights, it's usually against the interests of their people States decriminalizing pot, for one, would be an example of state law trying to broaden liberties that federal law restricts. Or Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage long before the US Congress did anything about it. Or even at a smaller level, San Francisco city officials doing so before the state of California did. There's plenty of examples where a more local decision went in furtherance of liberties than a more distant decision, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that politicians become more enlightened and virtuous the higher up in the federation they go. > The existence of this as a state law would only serve to exist in opposition to states that don't, to the detriment of their citizens. I'm not sure I follow. I think it's perfectly fine to let the fifty laboratories of democracy play this out, keeping the locus of control as close to the people as possible. The people of California have shown that the lack of noncompetes doesn't necessarily impede commerce or progress; the people of other states may learn from that and follow, or decide otherwise. And if those states that keep enforcing noncompetes do end up doing poorer for their people, they will change the law, or vote with their feet.