Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-go-your-own-way-♩♫♩♫ dept.

Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general's office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018.

Marcus Ruiz Evans, the vice president and co-founder of Yes California, said his group had been planning to wait for a later election, but the presidential election of Donald Trump sped up the timeline.

"We're doing it now because of all of the overwhelming attention," Evans said.

The Yes California group has been around for more than two years, Evans said. It is based around California taxpayers paying more money to the federal government than the state receives in spending, that Californians are culturally different from the rest of the country, and that national media and organizations routinely criticize Californians for being out of step with the rest of the U.S. 

Could California go it alone?

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:13PM (#432159)

    I agree with most of those as well, except for the economics and native american bits.

    Native Americans understand private property now because that is the system they have to work with. On the reservation things are different, though they still have problems with private ownership and greed within the tribe.

    Economics: its all just a system to help humans exchange goods and services, at a certain point building more things is actually detrimental, and doing anything solely for the sake of "the economy" is a backwards approach. Do things to solve human problems, let the economy just be a secondary game hardly necessary for daily survival. I have spent lots of time optimizing things that have no monetary benefit to myself, so I don't believe we humans require a profit motive to accomplish things. I'm sure there are good points in that book you linked, but I stopped at the beginning of chapter 2 when he argues that a hoodlum breaking a window is actually beneficial to the economy. That may be true, but it fails to account for the environmental concerns of wasting energy / resources fixing something that shouldn't have needed fixing. It also takes resources away from building new housing. With such basic assumptions forming the foundation of his book I am not going to bother continuing since there will be subsequent errors built upon the flawed assumptions.

    Social safety nets should not be considered from a monetary perspective, when done that way it is near impossible to see the benefits. You need to view things from a human perspective first, and monetary concerns come second.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:09AM (#432223)

    You may want to actually finish the chapter. He makes his point in the last paragraph.

    The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

    tl;dr you broke something, and other things are not done because of it.

    Also damn its like maybe 3 paragraphs of text... You read it with a closed mind and learned nothing. If you *read* the whole thing you will see why social programs tend to fail and why. If you want to build systems that work you *must* work around those issues. They are important if you actually want to help someone with those programs.