Workers are so much more militant and punitive than executives. It's not other executives that will try and hurt his career because he made a decision and went with it. It will be the worker bees that will attempt to hurt him 5 years down the road -- without even knowing the full story.
I don’t need to be in “the club”. Some people badly want that. Let them have it. Why would I have a problem with an executive changing jobs? Because he gets paid more money than me?
It's true that the order only impacts state highways. It removes approximately 700 license plate readers and then also leaves thousands still up locally. However, in my county, the Sheriffs dept is actually taking them down voluntarily, because of the positive political reception of the state-road ban. And its happening in other jurisdictions near me.
A lot of people instinctively believe Florida only does dumb stuff, but we really do have quite responsive people in charge here. From where I sit, I see good movement on the whole Flock issue in my state and county.
Yes, it really is. Florida is a cultural punching bag, and we take that in stride too. We have a balanced budget, no state income tax, and no flock cameras. We are close to abolishing property taxes as well. Our natural disaster response is some of the most robust anywhere in the world as well.
This is misleading. I'm not sure replacing income tax with sales tax is a positive change. The state is still collecting taxes, but the tools are pretty regressive.
Sales taxes are fundamentally a tax on the poor. Someone making 20x the median income is not spending 20x more on groceries and other goods. It doesn't scale well at all, especially when a lot of net worth goes into housing. And the GP was arguing about ending property tax...
I don't think we're in a good enough economic situation as of now to eliminate sales tax. But an ideal model is a strong progressive income tax model (I'm talking "0% tax under 40k" levels of progressive) with sales tax only employed in bad economic states. In general, taxes should be heavier in good economic times to allow bad economic situations to relax them.
I’m glad that that my state isn’t run that way. Your assumptions about consumption taxes across income brackets not scaling is factually inaccurate. If sales tax is fundamentally a tax on the poor, then so is an income tax.
Florida is one of the lowest taxed states across all income brackets, and even provides good social programs.
I’m glad that people who want to tax the rich to death for the sake of a crusade that isn’t even needed don’t have much of a voice in my state.
>consumption taxes across income brackets not scaling is factually inaccurate
I'd love to hear a proper counter-argument. Maybe Florida works different, but sales taxes tend to be constant (i.e. scaling linearly with consumption), and individual consumption does not scale linearly with income. Someone making 200k may buy more luxury food, but not necessarily 10x as much as someone making 20k. And someone making 2 million a year does not consume 10x as much as the 200k person.
>If sales tax is fundamentally a tax on the poor, then so is an income tax.
If income tax wasn't progressive it would be. But it is. Not progressive enough, but the idea is there. Higher brackets get taxed more percentage wise, not in a simple linear fashion.
>and even provides good social programs.
Sure. Give your money to insurance premiums that run away when it's time to do their job instead of government program. Sounds much better.
>I’m glad that people who want to tax the rich to death for the sake of a crusade
Always nice to have people be honest with themselves. I'm just being honest with math. We call a 10 millionaire being taxed 90% a millionaire. We call someone making 30k being taxed 10% on the verge of homelessness (likely on government assistance despite working). As long as such inequality exists, we can and should be aggressively taxing the most privileged to build a society that prevents that reality.
>don’t have much of a voice in my state.
We are both under the same federal government. Most of these large scale issues are federal anyway. The winds are changing slowly and I won't pity those who baron robbed the country one bit (many of whom tried to flee to your state) when it's time to pay the piper.
Nope. Florida simply led the way and calmly banned Flock cameras from the entire state. Every other state that cares about individual liberty should follow suit.
I mean, let's not get carried away. Florida still has very oppressive anti-second-amendment legislation and laws on the books, and until they get rid of that, I wouldn't call them anywhere close to having individual liberty.
When I lived in FLA and it was super easy to get a concealed weapon permit. I carried a gun not infrequently just to exercise that right. I was serious about training with it as well.
The other states I’ve lived in haven’t been so straight forward.
Florida is also ironically how we may get cookie banners in line and to actually opt users out as they prosecute websites there as illegal wire taps if you still put cookies on the page after or before the opt out happens.
American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things.
But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists.
US states are sovereign in the sense the term is understood in US constitutional law, but not in the sense used in international law and international politics. They would be autonomous subdivisions of a sovereign state in the latter sense.
Sovereign states in the latter sense can delegate their powers to external entities (as they do in the EU), but they can also unilaterally choose to take that power back (as the UK did).
The USSR was an interesting case when it comes to sovereignty. Legally its member republics were sovereign states, but that sovereignty meant little in practice. As a result of a weird compromise, Ukraine and Belarus were founding members of the UN, despite not being sovereign in the generally understood sense. There was a legal mechanism for secession, but in the end, the member republics ignored it and dissolved the union.
No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law.
With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992).
The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
You and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind.
A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
I would just say that we should be mindful that the legal definition is how things are implemented in practice as well - states exercise their sovereign rights on a daily basis because the exercise of those rights is the exercise of an interpretation of law.
Related to your point about absolute sovereignty I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but I would say that, and I'm not accusing you of doing this by any means, we should be mindful not to shift the goalposts and attempt to depress the meaning and significance of sovereignty just because an entity isn't also absolutely sovereign.
It seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.
It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.
It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)
You are of course free to pretend that legalese and case-law should dictate the use of ordinary words — to the point of ascribing malice to those who don’t do that.
I never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).
Anyone can request their birth certificate in the jurisdiction of recording. There is absolutely no mechanism by which a request for that documentation could be refused because of someone’s race or a grudge.
What do you mean no mechanism? People can just say no? What I think you mean is that they’re are mechanisms today to combat folks saying no, but nothing stops (only punushes) people from saying no.
It’s a lot harder these days given the 60 years of progress
You might be back down to zero progress and if that’s true you have my genuine sympathy. I look around and all I see is great progress everywhere. I don’t care much about social politics though. People being mad at each other about whatever offense is popular today just doesn’t register with me.
Responsible governance around something like when and how to retaliate (if at all) against tariffs comes down to one of the most fundamental forces of economics and trade: real leverage. Whether or not the US should exercise its leverage to attain outsized and favorable terms on the economic stage is the peanut gallery conversation that happens on social media. The two worlds couldn't be farther apart. What will actually happen in the end is just a math equation that has never changed and will never change.
If you want to have the peanut gallery conversation, then you’re more than welcome to have it. It’s just not interesting. Leverage is all that matters here.
