U.S. Politics 24

[Shryke]

From where does a city get the power to compel people within its jurisdication to pay taxes and to obey its ordinances and rulings?

So you do think local democracy is only dependent on the state constitution? The state constitution doesn't just define the legal framework of local governance, but the ethical one?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So you do think local democracy is only dependent on the state constitution? The state constitution doesn't just define the legal framework of local governance, but the ethical one?

I take it from your answer that you are agreeing that the city only gets its legal power, whatever it is, from the state in the first place. Right?

But to answer your question, it is both to some extent. It surely defines the legal framework, and it plays a role in the ethical framework. Or rather, it is representative, at some level, of that ethical framework. Otherwise, local governments could do whatever they damn well please in terms of corruption, finances, etc., with no recourse. Or a group of people could just decide for themselves that they want to break away from their city, establish their own new city, with schools and taxes, etc. We don't permit that level of self-determination, do we?

All that simply goes to validate the point that this is not as simple an issue as simple minds may think on first glance.

Okay, that was snarky, but I sort of liked the way it sounded so I'm keeping it in there anyway. But seriously, it just isn't all that simple when you start digging into the ramifications of a local government that isn't reacting in a way the majority of the citizens of a state, through their elected representives, believe is responsible. In some cases, for example, a local government may have entered into agreements or accrued obligations that it cannot meet. Too much money required to go out, and no legal ability to raise revenue over the objections of its residents. Tough issues, but I don't care enough about what is happening in Michigan to delve into it.

[awesome possum]

Why in the hell would I want to take the time to delve into the nuances of some law Michigan just passed, just to satisfy your curiousity as to what my opinion is? I know right from the outset that it's not going to be a clearcut issue because of those state constitutional issues I mentioned. More work than it's worth, at least to me.

It's not just that. It's how you appear to miss the point, talk around it, or just completely ignore it sometimes. Your insistence that all shareholders are responsible for corporate malfeasance lends credence to this.

[Swordfish]

The war on drugs..... Simple idiocy or outright criminally moronic?

Indulge me in a quick game of Would You Rather. Here are your choices: Would you rather legalize and regulate most drugs in the United States... or give $39 billion per year to the Sinaloa drug cartel to spend on whatever it wants? It's a serious question. For those who aren't familiar with that criminal organization, it may help to know that earlier this year, its bosses in Mexico were responsible for decapitating 15 people and leaving their bodies on the streets of Acapulco.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Your insistence that all shareholders are responsible for corporate malfeasance lends credence to this.

What the hell are you talking about? I never claimed anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that shareholders obviously suffer if their company loses value, or if they overpay for someone.

Can't someone just make you into a pie or something?