4 ms·

Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care,

Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming. You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
> You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
- maxerickson 9mo ago
  So know your customer regulations at the gas station then?
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    Sure, whatever it takes. You somehow think it’s incredulous when Pornhub was deplatformed from credit card rails easily, and is still age gated in 23 states through statute. This is far worse, and laws can be made to do whatever the target outcome is. I get it, your mental model differs, and that’s fine. The tools exist and can be used. They could start by blacklisting the BIN of any federal government payment card, and tighten further iteratively based on continuous monitoring and ground truth acquisition. If aggressors have to start carrying large quantities of cash around to operate, sounds like that’s going to be an operational risk. Federal supremacy is based on respect of their authority and providing them material support in state through economic exchange. Revoke both and they are powerless on the ground, and are at the mercy of the locals. https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/ https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/
    - eudamoniac 9mo ago
      Even in the absolute best case scenario where this just works, the bare minimum retaliation is withholding of federal funds, and I guarantee you any state or state populace in that scenario will blink first.
      - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
        Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it. I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
        eudamoniac 9mo ago
        I understand that, but you're assuming they also stop paying federal tax altogether? Your initial point was to just not allow federal employees to transact, but now we're quickly entering secession territory. The red states mostly grow the food, anyway. Is Manhattan prepared to starve? Feds may block imports to such a rogue state. If your point is that states should essentially secede to prevent federal agents from doing anything within, that's possible, but I don't think most citizens of even the bluest state want to secede.
        drewbug01 9mo ago
        “secession territory” Honest question: what territory do you think we are in now that is better than “secession territory?” Honest to god question. Federal agents are executing citizens in the streets!
        toomuchtodo 9mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_secession > The major power lever that could be used in soft secession is if a state normally giving more in taxes to the federal government than it receives back would cease to send tax revenue to the federal government. These states, which generally are blue states governed by a Democratic Party majority, could leverage finances to exert influence over the federal administration, i.e. a Republican administration seen as hostile to their interests. Interestingly, if done strategically, you could cause the US government to default on treasuries through a loss of federal revenue (a component of which is used to service US debt), forcing a debt spiral. This would enable the states with economic power to "wag the dog" in partnership with the bond market, because the federal government cannot operate if they lose the power of funding via issuing debt while also losing revenue from these states. Net contributor states could issue muni debt directly into the bond market, avoiding the need for federal dollars. Blue states can force the federal government into default, if they have the will.
xboxnolifes 9mo ago
No, its prosecution for supporting terrorists.
- maxerickson 9mo ago
  Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was ICE. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota? That sounds like maybe not entirely the best idea.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hdgvhicv 9mo ago
    Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
    - maxerickson 9mo ago
      Yes, you appear to see the point I am making.
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        It's not a real point. It's only illegal to support a sanctioned person if you know or should have known they were sanctioned.
        maxerickson 9mo ago
        Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.
solaire_oa 9mo ago
You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal. Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating. That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.

toomuchtodo 9mo ago

> You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...

maxerickson 9mo ago
So know your customer regulations at the gas station then?
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  Sure, whatever it takes. You somehow think it’s incredulous when Pornhub was deplatformed from credit card rails easily, and is still age gated in 23 states through statute. This is far worse, and laws can be made to do whatever the target outcome is. I get it, your mental model differs, and that’s fine. The tools exist and can be used. They could start by blacklisting the BIN of any federal government payment card, and tighten further iteratively based on continuous monitoring and ground truth acquisition. If aggressors have to start carrying large quantities of cash around to operate, sounds like that’s going to be an operational risk. Federal supremacy is based on respect of their authority and providing them material support in state through economic exchange. Revoke both and they are powerless on the ground, and are at the mercy of the locals. https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/ https://smartpay.gsa.gov/smarttax/recognizing-your-account/
  - eudamoniac 9mo ago
    Even in the absolute best case scenario where this just works, the bare minimum retaliation is withholding of federal funds, and I guarantee you any state or state populace in that scenario will blink first.
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      Blue states fund red states, they are the economic engines of the country. California has the forth largest economy in the world. The federal government has more to lose. Red states are poor. Blue states can simply withhold federal support, keep federal tax revenue in state and let the federal government try to sue for it. I encourage the federal government to try to support itself off of red states. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo...
      - eudamoniac 9mo ago
        I understand that, but you're assuming they also stop paying federal tax altogether? Your initial point was to just not allow federal employees to transact, but now we're quickly entering secession territory. The red states mostly grow the food, anyway. Is Manhattan prepared to starve? Feds may block imports to such a rogue state. If your point is that states should essentially secede to prevent federal agents from doing anything within, that's possible, but I don't think most citizens of even the bluest state want to secede.
        drewbug01 9mo ago
        “secession territory” Honest question: what territory do you think we are in now that is better than “secession territory?” Honest to god question. Federal agents are executing citizens in the streets!
        toomuchtodo 9mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_secession > The major power lever that could be used in soft secession is if a state normally giving more in taxes to the federal government than it receives back would cease to send tax revenue to the federal government. These states, which generally are blue states governed by a Democratic Party majority, could leverage finances to exert influence over the federal administration, i.e. a Republican administration seen as hostile to their interests. Interestingly, if done strategically, you could cause the US government to default on treasuries through a loss of federal revenue (a component of which is used to service US debt), forcing a debt spiral. This would enable the states with economic power to "wag the dog" in partnership with the bond market, because the federal government cannot operate if they lose the power of funding via issuing debt while also losing revenue from these states. Net contributor states could issue muni debt directly into the bond market, avoiding the need for federal dollars. Blue states can force the federal government into default, if they have the will.

xboxnolifes 9mo ago

No, its prosecution for supporting terrorists.

maxerickson 9mo ago
Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was ICE. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota? That sounds like maybe not entirely the best idea.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- hdgvhicv 9mo ago
  Some guy comes into your restaurant and eats a meal. Pays cash. Leaves. He was a sanctioned Russian. You're now subject to charges from the state of Minnesota?
  - maxerickson 9mo ago
    Yes, you appear to see the point I am making.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      It's not a real point. It's only illegal to support a sanctioned person if you know or should have known they were sanctioned.
      - maxerickson 9mo ago
        Yeah you aren't getting the point. I'm not saying that the proprietor would be at risk for unfair prosecution, I'm saying the policy would be useless because it is easy to avoid if you don't take it to an absurd extreme. I guess I should have spelled it out in the initial comment.

solaire_oa 9mo ago

You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal. Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating. That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.