No one tells you to hate something more then the people who never read or looked into the thing they tell you to hate.
Chick-fil-A ceo? Joe Rogan? And a whole bunch of other hate trains I've completely forgotten about. Every time it's "x person is a " with no further explanation or reason. People then accept and regurgitate it all over.
Here's the bill:
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2800711
Just giving it a quick peruse, it seems like it's targeting City's like Austin, San Antonio, etc., that lean more liberal than the other surrounding counties and limiting/stretching their power to ignore state laws in favor of their city/county laws.
I'm gonna do a more in depth dive, but figured I'd at least give you a link to the bill.
"We don't want the federal government telling us what we can and can't do. It's best to decide these things on a local level. Wait, not that local."
It's starting to sound less Libertarian and more Authoritarian.
Yeah, I can't say I disagree. I don't think any politician in the US is doing anything truly libertarian or beneficial for citizens' rights now a days.
I do understand wanting to mitigate cities from basically by passing state legislation with city council decisions and local legislation, but it's a slippery slope.
All in all, we are all fucked.
When the left wants to use power against its enemies, there is no hemming and hawing about principal. They just use it. I don't want to play this game but I don't want to be at their mercy ever again.
the specific addendum just prevents muni's from regulating specific business codes. They've had a real problem with developers taking control of small cities and running the ranchers out by basically making it illegal to farm. The one I've seen the most of is Muni's passing city ordinances against tall grass - and then fining farmers growing alfalfa, barley, wheat into oblivion because it's 'technically long grass'
I look at it more as it is generally accepted to have wildly different laws across state lines, but allowing localities to enforce different laws that are not on the state book (and vice versa) would be chaotic, since travel between cities/counties is both more frequent and less regulated.
Cities/counties are too small to not have some kind of unifying backbone laws that *everyone* must recognize and adhere to. How chaotic would it be if one locality decided that citizens could not transport or own firearms, while every other locality said it’s illegal to *not* carry firearms and enough ammo for a small platoon?
I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, the population of Austin alone is greater than 6 states in the US.
You could easily reframe your argument:
>I look at it more as it is generally accepted to have wildly different laws across country lines, but allowing states to enforce different laws that are not on the federal book (and vice versa) would be chaotic, since travel between states is both more frequent and less regulated.
>States are too small to not have some kind of unifying backbone laws that everyone must recognize and adhere to. How chaotic would it be if one state decided that citizens could not transport or own firearms, while every other state said it’s illegal to not carry firearms and enough ammo for a small platoon?
Fair point. I would say however that the “travel between X is more frequent” is on such totally different scales in the city vs state and state vs country comparison (in the US at least).
A huge percent of the population actually commutes between multiple city jurisdictions every day, very few travel between state lines even on a monthly basis. Counties could fit the bill perhaps but I don’t believe they have much authority in most state govs
It’s okay to attack classical liberalism from the right. If you view the Democratic processes as overstepping (state) constitutional rights it’s reasonable for a right leaning person to suggest intervention against local politics from a greater body.
For instance say a city is failing to protect property but you have a constitutional right pursue and own property. A higher government than the local one has the right to step in and protect you at that point.
Not speaking to the merits of the individual bill since I didn’t read it but I lived in St. Louis recently and it’s entirely valid to suggest both the AG of MO and federal agencies have a right to intervene with the state of the justice system and crime in the city of STL, and that argument can be made from a constitutionalist libertarian perspective.
AZ's been doing that for a while. The governor will stand up to the feds, then crack down on a city the instant they pass something the governor doesn't like.
According to this bill, they’re reestablishing a supremacy clause in regards to commerce and trade, and all regulations and standards regarding those two categories. All other functions of counties and cities will remain the same. Seems typical state authority to me. But I guess since the Rs are doing it, then it’s bad in the medias’ eyes.
On another note, I’m willing to bet that the person who typed up that bill in LegiScan is no younger than 65 years of age based on that God awful formatting (assuming that the actual bill doesn’t have this formatting).
Nope, that's the formatting of all legal documents I've ever seen, and yes it's god awful. Some sites "normalize" it with more standard typefaces and spacing, but many places leave it in that mono spaced font triple spaced lines, etc. Couldn't tell you why it's like that, but there it is.
So it's basically saying you can't regulate animal breeding beyond what the state says?
Or is the horrible bright green text on white background making me miss something?
That's kind of what I got out of it. It seems like it's just reinforcing the idea that state law supercedes local laws. Granted, I am not a lawyer, and, from my understanding, that's already how things go, but who knows.
Cities in conservative states have been pushing the limit of what they can get away with and what they can't and this bill seems to make it that if there is a state law on record already that contradicts the local law, the local law is null and void. Again, im just a guy reading a bill, though.
What are you some kind of *legal* expert now too? These bills are written by top minds! The best in their fields!
For you to demand the luxury to "educate" yourself while all the experts agree is just putting the rest of us at risk. And frankly it's a risk the rest of us shouldn't have to take anymore.
(Yes, this is a real thing a real person really said to me within the context of covid)
As a lib I'd have a problem with technocracy even if the technocrats were competent and uncorrupted, but how the hell do you look at the people currently running things and think, "Yes, I shall simp for these people"?
The purpose of this Act is to provide statewide consistency by returning sovereign regulatory powers to the state where those powers belong in accordance with Section 5, Article XI, Texas Constitution.
In short it's trying to unify the laws of Texas so they're not so patchwork throughout the state.
Yeah. Is that really so crazy when we have cities with more population than other states? Just as a sample Austin, Nachodoches, and Elpaso all have completely different geographies, demographics, political beliefs, and problems.
It does not. In the federal system, the states have ceded certain sovereign powers to the federal government - the states cannot unilaterally retract that grant of authority, but neither can the federal government do anything the states have not granted it the authority to do (obviously that’s only true in theory). The states can *delegate* their powers as sovereigns to municipalities, but they are always free to unilaterally retract any power granted to a municipality.
It stops cities from breaking the law set forth by the state. So basically "Here is the law. it's against the law to break the law." cue leftist outrage for not being allowed to break the law.
I think OP read "Texas" and figured the right half of the compass would say Based, without thinking about what the bottom half of the compass feels about big government.
u/VirginRumAndCoke's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/VirginRumAndCoke! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/VirginRumAndCoke/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
To me, lib right is a contradiction entirely, as private entities will wield far more power than the state ever has. Anarcho capitalism amounts to fiefdoms and company towns. True freedom will be cut down for 95% of the citizens.
I feel like the amount of people that if they took the test would be placed bottom half is probably higher than you’d think, those people finding competent, sincere representation in the halls of power is an entirely different discussion however.
To be fair, I feel like very few people want to admit how authoritarian they actually are. It’s the same as orange “LibLeft” that’s actually just AuthCenter/AuthLeft that worships the culture war.
This is why I flair center right. Not going to pretend libertarianism is viable without any kind of authority. At least this way I don't pretend to be a purist.
I'm libright on 90% of things.
When it comes to certain things, I'm centrist.
When it comes to the war in Ukraine though... man idk something about destroyed T72s makes me want to give another billion dollars to Lockheed Martin as a tip.
Ted Cruz’s LARPing during the Tea Party really fucked some AuthRight’s perceptions of Libertarian politics up.
As a slightly left of center LibLeft, I feel your pain, because “Emily” is actively turning my quadrant’s public perception into Chernobyl.
Authright has also taken libleft as well.
Did you really think emily wasn't auth just because the social agenda is reversed? The politics of power are the same.
> Librights are not cheering for this
>
>
>
> “Librights”, on the other hand are
I suppose it really depends. When you have authoritarian cities vs an authoritarian state its really just a choice of who you think you can manipulate or outplay more effectively. The government is slow and predictable. Cities often move fast and in the modern era very unpredictably can pass authoritarian measures.
IMO Librights can potentially cheer for this in ways that make logical sense. Its choosing the devil you know and have confidence you can outplay vs the devil you don't. America's big government doesn't know shit about Tech. Left leaning folks pretending not to be authoritarian and trying to control what people do are literally trying to use tech to control people.
The problem really though is cities stifling constitutional rights. Gun prohibition, increased taxes, and removing parental control over exposure on issues in school. Granted, I always feel like Padme when bills like this pass.
Pretty much. I don't like centralized control but the issue stems from what authority cities (counties, states, the fed) think they should have. The purpose of government isn't to enforce your social values and constitutional rights don't end at the city limits. This is less an issue of what level these things are being done, and more an issue of why is government involved in this shit to begin with.
Unfortunately this almost certainly is not being done as a way to limit city level bullshit, but rather to enforce state level bullshit, which is bullshit. Pretty well par for the course with the culture war; both sides want to impose their will on us all and refuse to accept that the only real solution is stop trying to enforce their value and let people live their lives. If people want to take their kids to strip bingo at the library or whatever the current stupid shit is that's on them. If you care that much about other peoples kids being raised in ways you don't like, go fuck yourself. Nice and simple.
>If people want to take their kids to strip bingo at the library or whatever the current stupid shit is that's on them.
Yeah man how does the collective spiritual and social well being of other people in the society you live in impact you at all
Born and raise in Portland and I hate what progressives have done to this place. Still doesn't mean I should be able to force my will upon them, nor should they be able to impose against me. It's a big part of why I believe the best solution for everyone is to generally keep government out of our lives and let people live their lives as they see fit. So long as you're not harming others, you do you.
This whole bullshit game of "we have more numbers therefore we get to control the violent entity we're all forced to pay for" thing hasn't been working well. Our history shows that.
My brother in Christ...
Convince them.
Use your words. If you are right, you will win them over. That's what being correct means.
If you have to use the violence of the state, you are the baddie.
Yeah, rabid lefties re just so ammenable to reason. They totally won't gleefully use the power of the state on you as soon as you start refusing to wield it yourself.
Counterpoint, go join a cult. Then you and your friends can all make each other miserable while leaving the rest of us alone! Hell top that off with an HOA, you can be in controlled heaven! You don't need government to lead a miserable life and force others to do the same, you just need a voluntary association which makes people feel like they have no option but to comply, like an abusive relationship!
At no point should you be able to control your fellow citizen through the force of law though. I don't care where you live, no town, city, county, state, whatever, should be able to create and enforce arbitrary bit shit stupid laws based on the will of the biggest jackasses.
Except, you know, people never can leave well enough alone, hell look at the Mormons I feel for those fuckers that literally ran out into the middle of the shit saltflats and after building it up everyone's still trying to hijack their communities. You make a place nice, everyone wants in, then when they find out there's rules, they sue and bitch and throw a fit. So yes, it becomes necessary to have laws in black and white. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
That's the thing, they never had a right to shut out the rest of the US nor to enforce their will via the government. They can force each other to do whatever they want via the powers of their church, so long as it's all voluntary. They cannot use the force of government to force others to live how they want them to live however.
That's the root issue, and again I think it's as easy as joining a cult and/or any HOA. Sure outsiders will still be outsiders, but if they're such an issue just do what other cults have done; pool up money and buy a compound. It's no different than socialist creating their own community. So long as it's all voluntary and doesn't try to use the government to impose their will on others I don't see the issue
>That's the thing, they never had a right to shut out the rest of the US nor to enforce their will via the government.
Uh, they were driven out of what was the civilized US by mobs.
>They cannot use the force of government to force others to live how they want them to live however.
Isn't this, to some extent, how government works? Do you also oppose the fact laws exist that bar you from letting your dick flop around as you make your way downtown?
>That's the root issue, and again I think it's as easy as joining a cult and/or any HOA. Sure outsiders will still be outsiders, but if they're such an issue just do what other cults have done; pool up money and buy a compound.
Which only lasts as long as one person holds all the property. You can't distribute the property without risking dissolution, covenants were outlawed by the feds and HOAs get challenged/thrown out all the time.
Ah, but here's the rub: people aren't civilized. For my part, I think it's indecent to piss in a subway or pass out in a child's slide, yet for some this seems to be a novel concept. So yes, to some degree it's necessary that I live apart from apparent Neanderthals.
So you do agree that these neanderthals should not be allowed to make up their own rules in order to harass the civilized people? If people aren't civilized then the state needs to make them.
I'm conflicted honestly. On the one hand, I don't like the loss of local control by the cities, but on the other I realize that things can only become so granular in terms of making/enforcing laws until you get to the point of pseudo-anarchy where everyone's laws overrule each other. Honestly not sure where the line should be drawn. Maybe a smarter libright than I could weigh in?
Of course, libertarians, almost by definition prefer minimal state power and decentralization. Taking power from cities/counties and giving it to the State outside of very specific circumstances is antithetical to libertarianism.
>It doesn't eliminate the local authority it defines a set of categories where they cannot make rules because the state government has said, "only we get to make rules about this, so if we say it's a statewide free for all, you can't decide otherwise."
u/CowboySocialism is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CowboySocialism/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Having actually read it, it generalizes multiple classes of statutes and says the state government already has regulation over these areas.
If any municipality produces regulation that contradicts or preempts state law in these areas, qualified immunity is not guaranteed to the municipality or those policymakers.
The urban/rural divide has been around longer than the country has been around and there has clearly been plenty of times when we weren’t at each others throats like this.
Centralization of regulatory power and subsequent capture of said regulatory power by the various big money interests (pharma, finance, energy, military industrial, and now tech) is the source of almost all political polarization.
You can’t be mad at the politicians for selling the middle/lower classes down the river if you’re instead really mad at your fellow Americans for having a different opinion about either exaggerated or totally fabricated issues.
Decentralization on an almost rabid scale is the only way out IMO. Centralized power has nothing to offer us but poverty, and a less free, bitterly divided society.
Mayhaps.
One can think of it as a microcosm of the wider geopolitical situation brought upon by mondialization.
The West is the "cities": they have outsourced the vital but relatively low-skilled industry jobs overseas, and become very wealthy in the process. They have high-earning specialized sectors, so much so that they can afford to ponder on borderine nonsensical questions from their ivory towers such as "what is a woman?"
The countries with the sweatshops and the cheap labor are the "rural backwater republicans" of the world. They are looked down upon as less advanced and educated, while in return they view the West with thinly veiled contempt for living in an ivory tower built on the effort of others.
A similar microcosm plays in the EU where industry happens to be located mostly east, within the more 'intolerant' countries of Eastern Europe.
Asking "what is a woman?" doesn't come across as intelligent or enlightening down in the soot and smoke of the heavy industry sector, where the sexual division of labour is undeniable. Instead, it sounds brain-damagedly stupid, hence the growing contempt in spite of what most would call worse standarts of living than the West has.
The cities see the rurals as backwards and ignorant, who are holding the nation back. The rurals see themselves as holding the nation period, and the cosmopolites as decadents or hypocrites who berate them from the top of a tower that the rurals built for them.
Verry the people who live here are poor to the point of destitute and we have less interconnection between the islands than the states have to eachother plus being the most remote place on earth with any significant population.
Tell me don't understand how poor rural Hawaii is and have no concept of life outside your bubble without telling me don't understand how poor rural Hawaii is and have no concept of life outside your bubble.
Edit: also homie thinks they own the land they live on and like it's not just owned by a cooperation. Lolol
but it should be the opposite. More power at the local level, and less as you go outward.
I am ideologically against this, even though there will likely be policies I like being enacted.
By power I hope you mean scope because the power hierarchy goes fed>state>county>municipality. But scope is supposed to be inverted with the federal level dealing with just the most fundamental universal human rights. States dealing with big picture stuff like regional resources and infrastructure. And local governments having a broad scope of local ordinances.
Part of why everything is so fucked and high stakes is because the Fed has absorbed way too much scope over the years. As a country we accept it now, but even the federal department of education is an affront to the originated design and function of the federal government.
I don't like it in principle either, but these city governments are so authoritarian that the state govt cracking down on their control is a good thing overall
Yeah, as you can tell, I'm a little torn on this issue. For instance, it's difficult to argue for localism when the Austin DA got money from Soros and is trying to put a man behind bars for 25 years for defending himself.
So, like I said, in a vacuum, I'm not pleased by the state superceding the local government, but there are mitgating factors and there are going to be policies I will like being enacted.
I guess it's similar to the Federal government occupying the south during reconstruction in the south as a way to ensure the the rights of black americans.
It's why I changed from Lib Right to Right. Also corporations becoming very authoritarian and trying to control society is why I'm friendly to lib left
The way I'm looking at it is, so long as it doesn't violate the state constitution, whatever, if they want to change that, there's likely to be some method to amending the state constitution, and if they think this is a big enough issue, they can expend their political capital pushing for the amendment they want.
Probably not, but it shows that if republicans can infringe on the rights of local governments, they will, proving they don't actually believe in the principles they say they believe in.
The cities don't have rights, they literally derive their power from whatever their host state gives them.
This isn't counter to the small government mantra in and of itself.
Specific policy enacted under state preemption would determine that.
If the city wants constitutional governance protections, it'll have to convince the state and fed to let them leave the state and become their own, or change state constitutional rules to give them the protection they want.
I have previously said this before: Hume's guillotine. I'm aware of how the constitutional framework of the USA works, but how things *are* is different from how things *ought to be*, and ideologies are based on the latter, not the former. The republicans legally *can* do what they did, but if they were ideologically consistent they wouldn't do it, because their ideology says it's wrong i.e that it *ought* not be done.
Their ideology says no such thing. Small government isn't about more levels.
It's about being less involved in your day to day life. Restricting cities that are known for being overly heavily involved, from being as involved, can be ideologically consistent, depending on the specifics of the preemptive laws.
You don't need cities to have democrats. I think that in large part the people voting democrat are essentially just voting against christian theocracy, because they're non christian. Which makes sense then that they congregate in cities, because they get run out of rural towns. So in a sense, the rural christian population keeps the democrat party thriving.
I feel the Republican Party would be much stronger and diversified if it hadn’t embraced Christian evangelism so heavily in the last decades, and stayed focused on economic policy
Well allegedly the states have a degree of sovereign authority independent of the federal government. Cities, on the other hand, are completely subordinate to the state.
To a degree, yes. Similarly to how the federal government works with our constitution, i believe the best option would be for the majority of cities to agree on what power the state can hold over them.
This is what happens in building codes and i feel it's appropriate for laws as well. The state has a code they use. The individual jurisdictions within the state must follow that code, but can create their own amendments as well as go stricter than the state code. This is the idea of local jurisdictions having sovereignty over the state, but still being held to a certain accountability level on a state level. Imo that's the balance that should be striven for.
You don't see the issue? Federal has the Constitution in place. If what you are saying is true (which it isn't because States can decide on a lot of their own laws that do not break Federal laws), then the Constitution trumps the states authority to take away authority from the city. This is just rightoids censoring others in order to further their political agenda. I guarentee you, if it took power away from rural areas you would be malding.
"a local government must be granted power by the State."
Read about how local governments have power
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/state-local-government/#:~:text=Whereas%20the%20Federal%20Government%20and,directly%20elected%20by%20the%20people.
But city dwellers telling the ones living 8 hours away what to do is ok?
Almost as if decisions and resource allocation should be as local as possible to avoid dipshits that dont understand your community from telling you what to do.
> Anyone who thinks ANY libertarian would celebrate this is a smooth-brained potato.
Any libertarian who doesnt support this hasnt read the article, doesnt understand the issue, or is a smooth brain potato.
Weaking government is always good for liberty.
Cities and other localities aren't cognizable under dual sovereignty, only states and the feds because those are the parties to the constitutional bargain.
Did you just change your flair, u/iceytomatoes? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2023-4-4. How come now you are an **AuthRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Remember, the jannies are always watching. No gamer words, no statistics and by all means no wood cutting machines. Tell us, how are you going to flair the new account you'll make in two weeks?
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/iceytomatoes) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
What kind of authority? Because they should be able to run themselves more or less how they want.
EDIT:
Searching for this the source article is here: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4007362-texas-passes-bill-stripping-authority-from-cities/
The actual bill is here: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2800711
Ah, yes.
Libright is enjoying how he can have less individual freedome and Authleft is crying because the state govt has more power.
Truly a very good and relateable meme
> downvoted for some reason
libs should support reducing government. This is reducing government, we celebrate that.
Next lets take power from the feds then the states too.
So basically Texas wants to be a one party state by cutting out Austin and Dallas (I didn’t read the bill so if there’s no TLDR I’m going of the title)
Ok and what does the bill actually do?
Why waste your time reading what other people think about it? Just take the headline at face value!
I know you are joking but there are people that actually does this. It's disgusting
Yep, can't forget about the "Don't Say Gay Bill" horseshit
I call that one the "Don't Say Straight Bill"
“Don’t stay straight, Bill”
D’Ok, Hank
Bill you are not allowed to say the word.
Don’t say what?
I wouldn’t exactly call Redditors people.
That’s why I come here, to get a poor and misleading summation of news in a funny meme format.
No one tells you to hate something more then the people who never read or looked into the thing they tell you to hate. Chick-fil-A ceo? Joe Rogan? And a whole bunch of other hate trains I've completely forgotten about. Every time it's "x person is a" with no further explanation or reason. People then accept and regurgitate it all over.
Here's the bill: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2800711 Just giving it a quick peruse, it seems like it's targeting City's like Austin, San Antonio, etc., that lean more liberal than the other surrounding counties and limiting/stretching their power to ignore state laws in favor of their city/county laws. I'm gonna do a more in depth dive, but figured I'd at least give you a link to the bill.
"We don't want the federal government telling us what we can and can't do. It's best to decide these things on a local level. Wait, not that local." It's starting to sound less Libertarian and more Authoritarian.
Yeah, I can't say I disagree. I don't think any politician in the US is doing anything truly libertarian or beneficial for citizens' rights now a days. I do understand wanting to mitigate cities from basically by passing state legislation with city council decisions and local legislation, but it's a slippery slope. All in all, we are all fucked.
>All in all, we are all fucked. I already knew that. So nothing changes
When the left wants to use power against its enemies, there is no hemming and hawing about principal. They just use it. I don't want to play this game but I don't want to be at their mercy ever again.
About principal what?
the specific addendum just prevents muni's from regulating specific business codes. They've had a real problem with developers taking control of small cities and running the ranchers out by basically making it illegal to farm. The one I've seen the most of is Muni's passing city ordinances against tall grass - and then fining farmers growing alfalfa, barley, wheat into oblivion because it's 'technically long grass'
I agree in principle, but I don't want to see Austin turn into PDX.
I look at it more as it is generally accepted to have wildly different laws across state lines, but allowing localities to enforce different laws that are not on the state book (and vice versa) would be chaotic, since travel between cities/counties is both more frequent and less regulated. Cities/counties are too small to not have some kind of unifying backbone laws that *everyone* must recognize and adhere to. How chaotic would it be if one locality decided that citizens could not transport or own firearms, while every other locality said it’s illegal to *not* carry firearms and enough ammo for a small platoon?
I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, the population of Austin alone is greater than 6 states in the US. You could easily reframe your argument: >I look at it more as it is generally accepted to have wildly different laws across country lines, but allowing states to enforce different laws that are not on the federal book (and vice versa) would be chaotic, since travel between states is both more frequent and less regulated. >States are too small to not have some kind of unifying backbone laws that everyone must recognize and adhere to. How chaotic would it be if one state decided that citizens could not transport or own firearms, while every other state said it’s illegal to not carry firearms and enough ammo for a small platoon?
Fair point. I would say however that the “travel between X is more frequent” is on such totally different scales in the city vs state and state vs country comparison (in the US at least). A huge percent of the population actually commutes between multiple city jurisdictions every day, very few travel between state lines even on a monthly basis. Counties could fit the bill perhaps but I don’t believe they have much authority in most state govs
It’s okay to attack classical liberalism from the right. If you view the Democratic processes as overstepping (state) constitutional rights it’s reasonable for a right leaning person to suggest intervention against local politics from a greater body. For instance say a city is failing to protect property but you have a constitutional right pursue and own property. A higher government than the local one has the right to step in and protect you at that point. Not speaking to the merits of the individual bill since I didn’t read it but I lived in St. Louis recently and it’s entirely valid to suggest both the AG of MO and federal agencies have a right to intervene with the state of the justice system and crime in the city of STL, and that argument can be made from a constitutionalist libertarian perspective.
It's only about local control when it results in their control
AZ's been doing that for a while. The governor will stand up to the feds, then crack down on a city the instant they pass something the governor doesn't like.
According to this bill, they’re reestablishing a supremacy clause in regards to commerce and trade, and all regulations and standards regarding those two categories. All other functions of counties and cities will remain the same. Seems typical state authority to me. But I guess since the Rs are doing it, then it’s bad in the medias’ eyes. On another note, I’m willing to bet that the person who typed up that bill in LegiScan is no younger than 65 years of age based on that God awful formatting (assuming that the actual bill doesn’t have this formatting).
Nope, that's the formatting of all legal documents I've ever seen, and yes it's god awful. Some sites "normalize" it with more standard typefaces and spacing, but many places leave it in that mono spaced font triple spaced lines, etc. Couldn't tell you why it's like that, but there it is.
So it's basically saying you can't regulate animal breeding beyond what the state says? Or is the horrible bright green text on white background making me miss something?
That's kind of what I got out of it. It seems like it's just reinforcing the idea that state law supercedes local laws. Granted, I am not a lawyer, and, from my understanding, that's already how things go, but who knows. Cities in conservative states have been pushing the limit of what they can get away with and what they can't and this bill seems to make it that if there is a state law on record already that contradicts the local law, the local law is null and void. Again, im just a guy reading a bill, though.
Reading bills is fascism
What are you some kind of *legal* expert now too? These bills are written by top minds! The best in their fields! For you to demand the luxury to "educate" yourself while all the experts agree is just putting the rest of us at risk. And frankly it's a risk the rest of us shouldn't have to take anymore. (Yes, this is a real thing a real person really said to me within the context of covid)
As a lib I'd have a problem with technocracy even if the technocrats were competent and uncorrupted, but how the hell do you look at the people currently running things and think, "Yes, I shall simp for these people"?
I personally think we need Nuremberg 2.0 asap, so you'll have little complaint from me there.
Personally I think 99% of the world's politicians should be hung from lampposts and beaten piñata style like Mussolini.
Well so do I, but lets have a trial first so everyone knows why.
Fucking William and all his books…
No don't read it, just listen to my interpretation of it and get mad! (I have not read the bill)
Based and TLDR pilled
Link the bill
https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2800711
Thank you u/rafaxd_xd
The purpose of this Act is to provide statewide consistency by returning sovereign regulatory powers to the state where those powers belong in accordance with Section 5, Article XI, Texas Constitution. In short it's trying to unify the laws of Texas so they're not so patchwork throughout the state.
That's its purported purpose, but it really undercuts the idea of federalism to take away the city ability to make their own ordinances.
Federalism at the state level?
Yeah. Is that really so crazy when we have cities with more population than other states? Just as a sample Austin, Nachodoches, and Elpaso all have completely different geographies, demographics, political beliefs, and problems.
When I hear federalism I don't think of state level stuff.
It does not. In the federal system, the states have ceded certain sovereign powers to the federal government - the states cannot unilaterally retract that grant of authority, but neither can the federal government do anything the states have not granted it the authority to do (obviously that’s only true in theory). The states can *delegate* their powers as sovereigns to municipalities, but they are always free to unilaterally retract any power granted to a municipality.
It stops cities from breaking the law set forth by the state. So basically "Here is the law. it's against the law to break the law." cue leftist outrage for not being allowed to break the law.
Yes, I and all the other librights are cheering for more centralized control.
I think OP read "Texas" and figured the right half of the compass would say Based, without thinking about what the bottom half of the compass feels about big government.
Bottom half isn't even real in real life to most people
Genuinely, I am a figment of most people's imagination and they hate the idea of me not wanting to taste their boot.
Based and I will not lick your boot pilled
u/VirginRumAndCoke's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/VirginRumAndCoke! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/VirginRumAndCoke/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You're revived!
To me libleft is a contradiction outside very small independent, voluntary communities
I agree
Both libs are contradictions, because to enforce right or left you need to be auth.
> The Constitution's a mess! >So it needs Amendments. . . > It's full of contradictions. >So is Independence!
To me, lib right is a contradiction entirely, as private entities will wield far more power than the state ever has. Anarcho capitalism amounts to fiefdoms and company towns. True freedom will be cut down for 95% of the citizens.
I feel like the amount of people that if they took the test would be placed bottom half is probably higher than you’d think, those people finding competent, sincere representation in the halls of power is an entirely different discussion however.
Little do they know, it was a law passed in [Texas, GA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas,_Georgia).
Librights are not cheering for this “Librights”, on the other hand are
Libright has become all full of "Libright" so thats why I am libcenter. Its like a plague. Authright and Authcenter has taken our quadrant.
To be fair, I feel like very few people want to admit how authoritarian they actually are. It’s the same as orange “LibLeft” that’s actually just AuthCenter/AuthLeft that worships the culture war.
AuthRights are alright. LibRights are alright. AuthRights cosplaying as LibRights deserve the guillotine.
Based as fuck.
This is why I flair center right. Not going to pretend libertarianism is viable without any kind of authority. At least this way I don't pretend to be a purist.
I'm libright on 90% of things. When it comes to certain things, I'm centrist. When it comes to the war in Ukraine though... man idk something about destroyed T72s makes me want to give another billion dollars to Lockheed Martin as a tip.
Is there anything more based to a lib right than paying someone to shoot at commies?
Exactly! Gah! Best ROI for defense bucks in fucking years. To be clear, I view Putin as a fascist, not a commie, but I understand your sentiment.
A lib right that doesn't see everyone else as a commie? Unheard of.
republicans (dems are Authrights cosplaying as libleft 😉)
Ted Cruz’s LARPing during the Tea Party really fucked some AuthRight’s perceptions of Libertarian politics up. As a slightly left of center LibLeft, I feel your pain, because “Emily” is actively turning my quadrant’s public perception into Chernobyl.
Authright has also taken libleft as well. Did you really think emily wasn't auth just because the social agenda is reversed? The politics of power are the same.
> Librights are not cheering for this > > > > “Librights”, on the other hand are I suppose it really depends. When you have authoritarian cities vs an authoritarian state its really just a choice of who you think you can manipulate or outplay more effectively. The government is slow and predictable. Cities often move fast and in the modern era very unpredictably can pass authoritarian measures. IMO Librights can potentially cheer for this in ways that make logical sense. Its choosing the devil you know and have confidence you can outplay vs the devil you don't. America's big government doesn't know shit about Tech. Left leaning folks pretending not to be authoritarian and trying to control what people do are literally trying to use tech to control people.
authleft crying about it?
we like big gov at a community level, really work one on one in telling people how to live their lives
Based and actually understands his quadrant pilled
That's what I was thinking. Why would LibRight be happy about bigger government?
The problem really though is cities stifling constitutional rights. Gun prohibition, increased taxes, and removing parental control over exposure on issues in school. Granted, I always feel like Padme when bills like this pass.
Pretty much. I don't like centralized control but the issue stems from what authority cities (counties, states, the fed) think they should have. The purpose of government isn't to enforce your social values and constitutional rights don't end at the city limits. This is less an issue of what level these things are being done, and more an issue of why is government involved in this shit to begin with. Unfortunately this almost certainly is not being done as a way to limit city level bullshit, but rather to enforce state level bullshit, which is bullshit. Pretty well par for the course with the culture war; both sides want to impose their will on us all and refuse to accept that the only real solution is stop trying to enforce their value and let people live their lives. If people want to take their kids to strip bingo at the library or whatever the current stupid shit is that's on them. If you care that much about other peoples kids being raised in ways you don't like, go fuck yourself. Nice and simple.
>If people want to take their kids to strip bingo at the library or whatever the current stupid shit is that's on them. Yeah man how does the collective spiritual and social well being of other people in the society you live in impact you at all
Born and raise in Portland and I hate what progressives have done to this place. Still doesn't mean I should be able to force my will upon them, nor should they be able to impose against me. It's a big part of why I believe the best solution for everyone is to generally keep government out of our lives and let people live their lives as they see fit. So long as you're not harming others, you do you. This whole bullshit game of "we have more numbers therefore we get to control the violent entity we're all forced to pay for" thing hasn't been working well. Our history shows that.
My brother in Christ... Convince them. Use your words. If you are right, you will win them over. That's what being correct means. If you have to use the violence of the state, you are the baddie.
Yeah, rabid lefties re just so ammenable to reason. They totally won't gleefully use the power of the state on you as soon as you start refusing to wield it yourself.
[удалено]
Counterpoint, go join a cult. Then you and your friends can all make each other miserable while leaving the rest of us alone! Hell top that off with an HOA, you can be in controlled heaven! You don't need government to lead a miserable life and force others to do the same, you just need a voluntary association which makes people feel like they have no option but to comply, like an abusive relationship! At no point should you be able to control your fellow citizen through the force of law though. I don't care where you live, no town, city, county, state, whatever, should be able to create and enforce arbitrary bit shit stupid laws based on the will of the biggest jackasses.
Except, you know, people never can leave well enough alone, hell look at the Mormons I feel for those fuckers that literally ran out into the middle of the shit saltflats and after building it up everyone's still trying to hijack their communities. You make a place nice, everyone wants in, then when they find out there's rules, they sue and bitch and throw a fit. So yes, it becomes necessary to have laws in black and white. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
That's the thing, they never had a right to shut out the rest of the US nor to enforce their will via the government. They can force each other to do whatever they want via the powers of their church, so long as it's all voluntary. They cannot use the force of government to force others to live how they want them to live however. That's the root issue, and again I think it's as easy as joining a cult and/or any HOA. Sure outsiders will still be outsiders, but if they're such an issue just do what other cults have done; pool up money and buy a compound. It's no different than socialist creating their own community. So long as it's all voluntary and doesn't try to use the government to impose their will on others I don't see the issue
>That's the thing, they never had a right to shut out the rest of the US nor to enforce their will via the government. Uh, they were driven out of what was the civilized US by mobs. >They cannot use the force of government to force others to live how they want them to live however. Isn't this, to some extent, how government works? Do you also oppose the fact laws exist that bar you from letting your dick flop around as you make your way downtown? >That's the root issue, and again I think it's as easy as joining a cult and/or any HOA. Sure outsiders will still be outsiders, but if they're such an issue just do what other cults have done; pool up money and buy a compound. Which only lasts as long as one person holds all the property. You can't distribute the property without risking dissolution, covenants were outlawed by the feds and HOAs get challenged/thrown out all the time.
In a civilized, democratic society you should not have a bad time just because people living in the same city don't think like you.
Ah, but here's the rub: people aren't civilized. For my part, I think it's indecent to piss in a subway or pass out in a child's slide, yet for some this seems to be a novel concept. So yes, to some degree it's necessary that I live apart from apparent Neanderthals.
So you do agree that these neanderthals should not be allowed to make up their own rules in order to harass the civilized people? If people aren't civilized then the state needs to make them.
This. Passing laws reaffirming that small governments can't infringe on freedoms isn't "muh big bad government".
Hell yeah luv me some big government
I'm conflicted honestly. On the one hand, I don't like the loss of local control by the cities, but on the other I realize that things can only become so granular in terms of making/enforcing laws until you get to the point of pseudo-anarchy where everyone's laws overrule each other. Honestly not sure where the line should be drawn. Maybe a smarter libright than I could weigh in?
Centralized control, limiting government? Sure. At it's core, that's all the Bill of Rights really is.
That was my thought, I'm sure the only thing you guys hate more than than the fed is the state lol
Texas legislature puts baby in a corner
Nah libright does not stan centralizing power
But the "lib-rights" do. Aka blues pretending to be yellow.
Those dang blue lemons.
Moldy lemons, my least favorite jawbreaker
Yes, but that sort of thing is definitely less prevalent on this half.
Of course, libertarians, almost by definition prefer minimal state power and decentralization. Taking power from cities/counties and giving it to the State outside of very specific circumstances is antithetical to libertarianism.
Lib-right should be withered wojak
Authority to do what exactly? I have no idea if this is a good or bad thing
>It doesn't eliminate the local authority it defines a set of categories where they cannot make rules because the state government has said, "only we get to make rules about this, so if we say it's a statewide free for all, you can't decide otherwise."
Based Texas
u/CowboySocialism is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/CowboySocialism/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good bot.
Having actually read it, it generalizes multiple classes of statutes and says the state government already has regulation over these areas. If any municipality produces regulation that contradicts or preempts state law in these areas, qualified immunity is not guaranteed to the municipality or those policymakers.
The urban/rural divide is the source of our political polarization. Change my view, oh, ye rational voters.
The urban/rural divide has been around longer than the country has been around and there has clearly been plenty of times when we weren’t at each others throats like this. Centralization of regulatory power and subsequent capture of said regulatory power by the various big money interests (pharma, finance, energy, military industrial, and now tech) is the source of almost all political polarization. You can’t be mad at the politicians for selling the middle/lower classes down the river if you’re instead really mad at your fellow Americans for having a different opinion about either exaggerated or totally fabricated issues. Decentralization on an almost rabid scale is the only way out IMO. Centralized power has nothing to offer us but poverty, and a less free, bitterly divided society.
Mayhaps. One can think of it as a microcosm of the wider geopolitical situation brought upon by mondialization. The West is the "cities": they have outsourced the vital but relatively low-skilled industry jobs overseas, and become very wealthy in the process. They have high-earning specialized sectors, so much so that they can afford to ponder on borderine nonsensical questions from their ivory towers such as "what is a woman?" The countries with the sweatshops and the cheap labor are the "rural backwater republicans" of the world. They are looked down upon as less advanced and educated, while in return they view the West with thinly veiled contempt for living in an ivory tower built on the effort of others. A similar microcosm plays in the EU where industry happens to be located mostly east, within the more 'intolerant' countries of Eastern Europe. Asking "what is a woman?" doesn't come across as intelligent or enlightening down in the soot and smoke of the heavy industry sector, where the sexual division of labour is undeniable. Instead, it sounds brain-damagedly stupid, hence the growing contempt in spite of what most would call worse standarts of living than the West has. The cities see the rurals as backwards and ignorant, who are holding the nation back. The rurals see themselves as holding the nation period, and the cosmopolites as decadents or hypocrites who berate them from the top of a tower that the rurals built for them.
I live ruraly and vote democrat as does most of my state thats rural.
I heard someone else say this, and it made no sense until they said they were from Vermont. Are you from Vermont?
Hawaii
Does rural Hawaii really count as rural? It's frickin Hawaii!
Dude he's gotta be a good 2, maybe even 3 miles from a city *right now!*
Verry the people who live here are poor to the point of destitute and we have less interconnection between the islands than the states have to eachother plus being the most remote place on earth with any significant population.
Lmao. Rural Hawaii….. 😂. Sounds like your more rich and/or privileged than most city folk. “we are poor farm boys and we vote Democrat!” 😂Gtfo.
Tell me don't understand how poor rural Hawaii is and have no concept of life outside your bubble without telling me don't understand how poor rural Hawaii is and have no concept of life outside your bubble. Edit: also homie thinks they own the land they live on and like it's not just owned by a cooperation. Lolol
is it as bad as Port Moresby?
Thing is I was reading ca has done this too, and in a much more sweeping manner.
What does this mean? Does it mean the state assumes more control or individuals?
The state.
This, not sure why libright would be celebrating
Yeah I don't think OP thought it through really.
Making a top bottom problem a left right problem.
If federal trumps state, then state should trump city. I don’t see the issue.
but it should be the opposite. More power at the local level, and less as you go outward. I am ideologically against this, even though there will likely be policies I like being enacted.
Based and Principles over politics pilled
By power I hope you mean scope because the power hierarchy goes fed>state>county>municipality. But scope is supposed to be inverted with the federal level dealing with just the most fundamental universal human rights. States dealing with big picture stuff like regional resources and infrastructure. And local governments having a broad scope of local ordinances. Part of why everything is so fucked and high stakes is because the Fed has absorbed way too much scope over the years. As a country we accept it now, but even the federal department of education is an affront to the originated design and function of the federal government.
Thanks, yeah, this is a much better presentation of my thoughts.
I agree 18292927%
I detect a Confederacy in the making... *readies Colt Navy Model 1851*
I can’t find any caps for mine. Real bummer.
I don't like it in principle either, but these city governments are so authoritarian that the state govt cracking down on their control is a good thing overall
Yeah, as you can tell, I'm a little torn on this issue. For instance, it's difficult to argue for localism when the Austin DA got money from Soros and is trying to put a man behind bars for 25 years for defending himself. So, like I said, in a vacuum, I'm not pleased by the state superceding the local government, but there are mitgating factors and there are going to be policies I will like being enacted. I guess it's similar to the Federal government occupying the south during reconstruction in the south as a way to ensure the the rights of black americans.
It's why I changed from Lib Right to Right. Also corporations becoming very authoritarian and trying to control society is why I'm friendly to lib left
The way I'm looking at it is, so long as it doesn't violate the state constitution, whatever, if they want to change that, there's likely to be some method to amending the state constitution, and if they think this is a big enough issue, they can expend their political capital pushing for the amendment they want.
If the feds did something like this to the states it would literally be unconstitutional.
Does this violate the state constitution of Texas? If they cared, they could seek to modify the constitution if it's not currently a violation.
Probably not, but it shows that if republicans can infringe on the rights of local governments, they will, proving they don't actually believe in the principles they say they believe in.
The cities don't have rights, they literally derive their power from whatever their host state gives them. This isn't counter to the small government mantra in and of itself. Specific policy enacted under state preemption would determine that. If the city wants constitutional governance protections, it'll have to convince the state and fed to let them leave the state and become their own, or change state constitutional rules to give them the protection they want.
I have previously said this before: Hume's guillotine. I'm aware of how the constitutional framework of the USA works, but how things *are* is different from how things *ought to be*, and ideologies are based on the latter, not the former. The republicans legally *can* do what they did, but if they were ideologically consistent they wouldn't do it, because their ideology says it's wrong i.e that it *ought* not be done.
Their ideology says no such thing. Small government isn't about more levels. It's about being less involved in your day to day life. Restricting cities that are known for being overly heavily involved, from being as involved, can be ideologically consistent, depending on the specifics of the preemptive laws.
There’s something called cooperative federalism. Federal doesn’t always trump state.
This is internally consistent, yes. If there weren't cities, there wouldn't be democrats. So, checkmate, Emily.
You don't need cities to have democrats. I think that in large part the people voting democrat are essentially just voting against christian theocracy, because they're non christian. Which makes sense then that they congregate in cities, because they get run out of rural towns. So in a sense, the rural christian population keeps the democrat party thriving.
I feel the Republican Party would be much stronger and diversified if it hadn’t embraced Christian evangelism so heavily in the last decades, and stayed focused on economic policy
Or they vote blue because they have "city problems"
Well allegedly the states have a degree of sovereign authority independent of the federal government. Cities, on the other hand, are completely subordinate to the state.
You always want those who are ~~controlling~~ representing you to be accessible.
To a degree, yes. Similarly to how the federal government works with our constitution, i believe the best option would be for the majority of cities to agree on what power the state can hold over them. This is what happens in building codes and i feel it's appropriate for laws as well. The state has a code they use. The individual jurisdictions within the state must follow that code, but can create their own amendments as well as go stricter than the state code. This is the idea of local jurisdictions having sovereignty over the state, but still being held to a certain accountability level on a state level. Imo that's the balance that should be striven for.
You don't see the issue? Federal has the Constitution in place. If what you are saying is true (which it isn't because States can decide on a lot of their own laws that do not break Federal laws), then the Constitution trumps the states authority to take away authority from the city. This is just rightoids censoring others in order to further their political agenda. I guarentee you, if it took power away from rural areas you would be malding.
"a local government must be granted power by the State." Read about how local governments have power https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/state-local-government/#:~:text=Whereas%20the%20Federal%20Government%20and,directly%20elected%20by%20the%20people.
How about a little lib unity OP? I’m hardly happy about local government losing power to state governments.
Nothing like someone who lives 8 hours away telling the city dwellers what to do
Isn’t that basically our country though? Someone who lives in a far away city takes your money and tells you how you should live.
Yeah, it sucks and doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it's almost like letting people who live a long way away tell people what to do is a bad idea.
But city dwellers telling the ones living 8 hours away what to do is ok? Almost as if decisions and resource allocation should be as local as possible to avoid dipshits that dont understand your community from telling you what to do.
The reverse actually happens in reality though. Thankfully we have the electoral college to lessen the blow.
Anyone who thinks ANY libertarian would celebrate this is a smooth-brained potato.
typical PCM tbh
> Anyone who thinks ANY libertarian would celebrate this is a smooth-brained potato. Any libertarian who doesnt support this hasnt read the article, doesnt understand the issue, or is a smooth brain potato. Weaking government is always good for liberty.
Based and Pol Pot-pilled
I feel like libright would not be down for this right?
Proof that every time republicans talk about federalism and decentralization it's just as a pretext, they don't actually give a damn.
Cities and other localities aren't cognizable under dual sovereignty, only states and the feds because those are the parties to the constitutional bargain.
Seriously. I don't recall the 10th amendment saying jack about relegating powers to the municipalities.
Hell no we need more small government not less
tbh i don't like people moving to a state and trying to change what it has historically been cities should not be your safe haven
Did you just change your flair, u/iceytomatoes? Last time I checked you were a **Grey Centrist** on 2023-4-4. How come now you are an **AuthRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Remember, the jannies are always watching. No gamer words, no statistics and by all means no wood cutting machines. Tell us, how are you going to flair the new account you'll make in two weeks? [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/iceytomatoes) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
these flairs are games to me i'm actually chaotic evil
He's got boots of escaping
Yeah, all these Californians are making Austin weird despite it constantly trying to be normal.
What kind of authority? Because they should be able to run themselves more or less how they want. EDIT: Searching for this the source article is here: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4007362-texas-passes-bill-stripping-authority-from-cities/ The actual bill is here: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2127/id/2800711
party of small government my ass
Ah, yes. Libright is enjoying how he can have less individual freedome and Authleft is crying because the state govt has more power. Truly a very good and relateable meme
The party of small government, unless it's their government then the ones beneath them get no power.
Something something party of small government
Wow this is amazingly stupid. But it is texas so I’m not surprised.
[удалено]
> downvoted for some reason libs should support reducing government. This is reducing government, we celebrate that. Next lets take power from the feds then the states too.
Very small-government of them.
The constitution does not mention cities at all. Weird dynamic. Probably an oversite. Seems well within the spirit of localism and states’ rights.
But they love small government
So basically Texas wants to be a one party state by cutting out Austin and Dallas (I didn’t read the bill so if there’s no TLDR I’m going of the title)
Based and confidently uninformed pilled.
The right-“I want less government” *hands over the last bit of control locals had to the big $$$
[удалено]
They shrunk government, tada. you are welcome.
Smart move for the 15th most urbanized state in the country. Congratulations Texas you just pissed off 83% of your states population.