Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
FTC Announces Ban on Non-Competes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77655181" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>For certain rules, yes... I would agree that they should be handled federally (worker protections such as child labor laws and and OSHA safety-based things)</p><p></p><p>For this one, I'm not so sure.</p><p></p><p>Trying to stuff all the eggs into one basket is great if we're sure that one particular basket is the best one.</p><p></p><p>I still kinda like the idea of (within reason) having 50 active ongoing experiments we can observe in real time to know what works and what doesn't.</p><p></p><p>I don't think it's a good thing to have sweeping regulatory power in the hands of a few people appointed by whichever party is in power at the time and opts to structure their regulatory policy around whichever large/powerful and most partisan state (in their favor) wants to do.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise we'll be constantly switching off between "Mimic California/New York policy" and "Mimic Texas/Florida policy" every 4-8 years.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would also argue that "States' Rights" isn't always a dogwhistle... Both factions have had their love/hate relationships with the concept.</p><p></p><p>States' Rights is what allows California or New Jersey to say "we don't care what your company (based out of Texas) handbook says, no...employees won't be allowed to carry concealed weapons at any store location in our state just because you say it's okay"</p><p></p><p>It's also what gives California the ability to say "no, marijuana is legal here, our state laws dictate that your company's locations here in Cali can't terminate someone's employment just because they like to smoke weed on the weekends"</p><p></p><p>Things like gay marriage and marijuana legalization wouldn't have gotten off the ground if not for States' Rights.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So that's something that the more progressive people need to consider.</p><p></p><p>It can't be a "have it both ways" scenario where I get to pick and choose what should be state vs. federal based on which level of government happens to agree with me on a particular issue at the time.</p><p></p><p>The gay marriage topic was one where we saw a lot people flip flop quite a bit. When the federal government was proposing DOMA, conservatives cheered and progressives said "the states should get to decide", in the wake of the obergefell v. hodges ruling, we basically saw the two teams switch positions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77655181, member: 123415"] For certain rules, yes... I would agree that they should be handled federally (worker protections such as child labor laws and and OSHA safety-based things) For this one, I'm not so sure. Trying to stuff all the eggs into one basket is great if we're sure that one particular basket is the best one. I still kinda like the idea of (within reason) having 50 active ongoing experiments we can observe in real time to know what works and what doesn't. I don't think it's a good thing to have sweeping regulatory power in the hands of a few people appointed by whichever party is in power at the time and opts to structure their regulatory policy around whichever large/powerful and most partisan state (in their favor) wants to do. Otherwise we'll be constantly switching off between "Mimic California/New York policy" and "Mimic Texas/Florida policy" every 4-8 years. I would also argue that "States' Rights" isn't always a dogwhistle... Both factions have had their love/hate relationships with the concept. States' Rights is what allows California or New Jersey to say "we don't care what your company (based out of Texas) handbook says, no...employees won't be allowed to carry concealed weapons at any store location in our state just because you say it's okay" It's also what gives California the ability to say "no, marijuana is legal here, our state laws dictate that your company's locations here in Cali can't terminate someone's employment just because they like to smoke weed on the weekends" Things like gay marriage and marijuana legalization wouldn't have gotten off the ground if not for States' Rights. So that's something that the more progressive people need to consider. It can't be a "have it both ways" scenario where I get to pick and choose what should be state vs. federal based on which level of government happens to agree with me on a particular issue at the time. The gay marriage topic was one where we saw a lot people flip flop quite a bit. When the federal government was proposing DOMA, conservatives cheered and progressives said "the states should get to decide", in the wake of the obergefell v. hodges ruling, we basically saw the two teams switch positions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
FTC Announces Ban on Non-Competes
Top
Bottom