Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I could have sworn I heard about traditional internet companies lobbying against Starlink recently, but I can't find it anywhere. What I did find [1, 2] is somewhat unfavorable treatment by the government but as far as I can tell (which is not very far) not egregious.
Anyways, I do think there's naturally more sympathy for charter cities than for Big Business. People live in them. They're In in Silicon Valley. Going against them means potentially evicting thousands of people, angering just about everyone. You'd have to be ready to fight but I think it might be possible, especially if you're in Texas and federal action against you becomes a states' rights issue too.
Within a decade or two, if things continue as they have been, I expect a soft nullification crisis. No state will come out and directly nullify a law, but instead they will not only refuse to enforce the law, but do everything in their power to hamper federal enforcement. We saw this in Texas when they took border enforcement into their own hands; from what I can tell the feds backed off because it was a bad fight to pick. Kicking thousands out of their city has worse optics than that so I think there's a good chance a big enough city can survive the inevitable legal battles.
Traditional cell phone companies lobbied against the Starlink+T-Mobile service recently, if that's what you're thinking of?
I don't think "going after" a charter city means evicting everybody. It just means outnumbering the cops who want to enforce the charter city's laws with cops who want to enforce state/federal laws instead. The optics of that are going to very much depend on the specifics of the laws being enforced against nullification or rendered null against local enforcement, and are to some extent going to depend on surrounding culture and random chance. The Short Creek raid and the YFZ Ranch raid were superficially pretty similar, but the latter was a lot more effective long-term, in part because the wider culture had turned further against polygamy and much further against underage marriage and sexism in the interim. If your idea of local laws is (peeks back up thread) "intelligent peers, an actually challenging primary school system" then (assuming you can't fix every demographic gap yourselves) you're fine until/unless the surrounding culture turns much harder against the typical disparate impact of academic challenge. If it's "no danger of state abduction if they say the wrong thing to a school therapist" then you're fine until/unless the culture turns much harder ... in favor of childhood gender transition against parental wishes, I'm assuming?
And then on the other side, you have to worry about whether the culture is going to turn in the other direction and make your efforts moot. Are the "Wobblies" going to turn your current residence communist any time soon? (I read about them in now-70-year-old books!) Wouldn't you feel silly if you'd gone to found a new city in the middle of nowhere to avoid that, with a bunch of equally anti-communist fellows, to wait out a particular End of the World that never came? The other trouble with selecting for the most radically anti-anything people around is that radicals (including reactionaries - at least some other forms of radicals haven't already seen how their ideals fail...) tend to get weird in ways you don't like just as much as in ways you do. I respect the kids-must-have-intelligent peers crowd, but if you get the ones who are so extreme about it that they don't consider e.g. "move to Los Alamos" a solution (23 AP classes offered, because "kids in a small town full of nuclear physicists" is a sweet peer group), well, let's just say that I'm not sure they're going to be able to keep up with the nuclear physicists' kids even in that specific desideratum.
Good points.
Well, I don't think you'd really have cops enforcing your laws, or "laws" at all. There would just be a set of criteria determining citizen eligibility for housing, employment, etc. Your only enforcement mechanism is keeping people out (and maybe fining them for smaller infractions). Laws can be struck down easily as unconstitutional, tenancy rules and employment rules are different. Basically a parallel legal system not necessarily quite as beholden to the prevailing interpretation of the constitution.
For example, as far as I know i's not legal for towns to have immigration laws at all, but it is legal for them to restrict new housing, de facto ensuring that only rich people can live there. It's not legal to hire based on IQ, but it is (or at least, was until recently) legal to hire based on criminal record. If you own all the land you can legally create rules that mimic good law.
I don't have time to respond to the rest right now, sorry. It's a pretty half-baked idea to be sure. I would be extremely surprised to see some kind of conservative resurgence at this point. The best we can hope for is a national divorce.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link