> It wants to enshrine rural republican rule at the expense of anything else.
No problem there unless you like being the ruler from afar. Perhaps a good solution would be to split governance so that urban and rural populations stay separate.
Until the West Coast states are safe to be openly anywhere right of center, I’ll take rural Texas or Fort Worth for good or ill.
It is profoundly weird to describe filling statewide offices based on the a democratic vote as "ruling from afar". The alternative filling offices based on whomever wins the majority of the majority of counties would allow a tiny minority of the electorate to decide the fate of all their fellows. It allows the minority to rule from afar instead of the majority.
As described the majority of the the majority is literally four single digit four percent of the electorate. The obvious intent is that at present the majorities views align with the minority and it should change the rules such as to prevent usurpation even should they lose the popular mandate.
It presages a future Texas where the majority of Texans want to move forward and the way is barred for a generation.
It is exactly by proportion as if we should decide that the only people who are allowed to hold nationwide office is someone who wins Minnesota no matter how the vote goes elsewhere. It's a world in which Walter Mondale wins Minnesota and we declare him president despite losing every other state to Reagan.
Then someone pops up and defends Minnisotism somehow as preventing the subjugation of Minnesota.
> Until the West Coast states are safe to be openly anywhere right of center, I’ll take rural Texas or Fort Worth for good or ill.
It's pretty safe... I live in Portland and am not shy about telling people I think that social security and the Wagner Act and OSHA are all unconstitutional, and that I think government should never provide welfare, and nothing bad has happened to me. In fact earlier this year I requested trial by combat from the Portland taxiation office, both on the phone and in a written letter, such that my victory could exclude me from paying Supportive Housing taxes; the only outcome was the lady on the phone laughed at me.
> A huge number of municipalities have laws around business regulations and around cutting trees
> In addition most new houses in Texas are built in HOA's that have a significant number of rules.
Both exist in California on top of California regulations.
What you don’t have in Texas is all the red tape that is required to build, live in, or rent a house. Not do you have the excessive regulatory apparatus that California has for businesses - whether to hire, fire, or retain talent.
> It's leaving the state that said state is looking at punishing you for.
Which is done to good people via abuse of California red flag laws. It used to be done via extraterritorial taxation.
> This is the way. Being able to attract immigrants in a demographic environment where your population is aging is a big plus for an economy.
Only if it isn’t used to express preference for a largely pliant/easily controlled workforce.
> Unfortunately large parts of the electorate don't appreciate this.
When one generation loses its manufacturing job, the next one loses it to early offshoring efforts in tech, and the current generation loses theirs to COVID era inspired offshoring, sympathy is a luxury.
Give them a sizable citizens’ dividend that offsets their individualized losses, coming from immigrant-involved firms, industries, and professions.
It's an observation, not an proposal. And its are worrisome one if true, because the young people are constantly exposed to quiet extreme opinions, lies and outrage influencers etc.
I.e. we've got people unironically saying they'd rather have their kids encounter a brown bear in the woods then an unknown man. That's how delusional people are becoming.
If the observation holds true, then the next 60+ years are basically locked into getting extremely bad...
In exchange for medium to long term poverty in fossil fuel dependent regions. Good for those that want to buy up cheap land and property, not so good for the people in those regions.
reply