If I remember correctly, fax machines are still used because they’re a “secure” method of transmitting sensitive patient information. Regulations are keeping that inefficient dinosaur alive.
They’re of course not secure, but people who are tech literate rarely draft this kind of legislation.
My phone won’t let me arbitrarily transmit over its radios. My phone also won’t let me load custom forked firmware for even more control over its hardware functions which were barely locked down to begin with, but that’s more of a “choose the right tool for the job” kind of thing.
They wouldn't be voting in any US elections in that case.
I'm more concerned with moving people who don't want to be a part of Texas. Would those who cannot afford to move be stuck in another (hostile) country? Would the federal government just... pay to move some tens or hundreds of thousands of people? What if that number ekes closer to millions?
Insurance underwriters would surely base their insurance premiums off that very information. I think this may be a rare case of insurance actually being somewhat fair considering race.
Texas will not cede its land. Those cities will remain under the care of Texas. That means the people who don’t wish to remain Texans must move.
There’s no way that Texas will allow independent or US-aligned havens within its borders. Have you read what their legislators have said about sanctuary cities?
Let’s say you have 100k federal and military employees in Texas. Are you suggesting that they just up and move on their own dime, when joint travel regulations and US code do not allow for this?
Again, the government would pull out and not pay for their move?
It largely is not the place for the federal government to micromanage trade outside of certain “national security” line items and some sanctions. It’s a lot harder to sell sanctions on your former neighbors to the international community, let alone your own legislators.
I get the zeal, but a clean secession sucks for everybody and in no way does anybody come out on top. This is without accounting for any violence or armed conflict over disputed items like military bases, national guard posts, defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed, and energy production facilities.
Can we realistically move everybody who wishes to remain a US citizen? Who pays for their move?
What about all of the federal government employees, including military, who currently live and work in the state?
This kind of thing would probably take months just for physical moving of households and I wonder if we even have the throughput to get this accomplished before whatever arbitrary succession date.
No matter figuring out what happens to everybody paying into federal services such as social security and Medicare. The fed will laugh in the face of anybody trying to claim back 20 years of taxes because they aren’t using a system they paid into. 20 million or so taxpayers who decide to secede will have to just give up what they’ve invested.
This breaks down as a business grows. When your business employs a significant portion of the local economy, it accumulates soft power that can rival that of local governments, all while having little to none of the accountability or representation that one would otherwise expect.
Management is likely being fired to an extent, but one used to expect those with the authority and responsibility to be in such a position of power to be held accountable. We’re long gone from the days where a leader would personally take accountability and step down while making unpopular or harmful decisions.
I don’t have a perfect solution to this but I clearly think something needs to change.
The government should represent the interests of the people. If the people have shown interest in curbing these layoff behaviors, where thousands of people lose their jobs while management remains in place with no apparent cuts to the top billing, then why would lawmakers not want to translate these interests into legislation?
I get a reasonable wariness of keeping the government out of private business, but if you have a town of 10 people, all employed by local business owner, and that business owner lays off two people, you have a large percentage of the population affected. If the townspeople enact a local ordinance to prevent this kind of behavior in the future, would they be in the wrong?
Same as any other energy cost. Modern societies rely on some type of energy to exist. Maybe the poor people will suffer because they can’t afford to fill up their vehicles with the cheaper dirty fuel and miss out on work opportunities. Maybe everybody suffers because the cheaper dirty fuel catalyzes harmful pollutants into the air which everybody breathes.
I guess it’s easy to say don’t buy cheap fuel because it’s bad for you, but if the alternative means not having a job or something to people with little to lose, that’s a call that’s harder to sell.
If I remember correctly, fax machines are still used because they’re a “secure” method of transmitting sensitive patient information. Regulations are keeping that inefficient dinosaur alive.
They’re of course not secure, but people who are tech literate rarely draft this kind of legislation.