Leaderboard

What do you mean by "if". There are no ifs here. Blue states have the same legislation. You can stop speculating about what I WOULD DO IF Democratic governors signed similar bills into law, and start looking at what I ACUALLY DID, WHEN they did sign similar bills into law. You'll find that the answer is I did nothing. Just like with this. It's a totally unremarkable, standard thing that everyone does. Picking out the one instance when it's a Republican doing it is cheap political hackery. And it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to less mainstream economic fascism (stuff that's not done by every politician in the country, but only by some of them, like $15 minimum wage, or banning McDonalds from the neighborhood, or shutting down coal mines and oil pipelines), Republicans are marginally less fascist than Democrats. Not by a whole lot, mind you, there's a pretty wide spectrum of fascism that both accept equally (protectionist franchise laws for instance), but there is a strip there at the edge that's almost exclusively Democrat country. Again: not this type of protectionism, this is mainstream. I'm talking strictly about issues right at the edge of the progressive movement, which haven't yet moved into the mainstream. Those are all the domain of Democrats, and Republicans are hard at work trying to delay them. They're not doing a good job, but they are trying.

That is an interesting question to explore. Implementation is a fascinating subject and under appreciated. I am by no means an expert on the science of pollution, so take this as friendly chewing on the subject. I would consider intervention necessary for the same reason you would restrict any property - Something that makes life impossible for the community with no chance of reasonable justice. Extrapolating the difference between the right to firearms versus WMD here. II can see it being reasonable for a community to require some kind of insurance for a power plant if it does not have the assets to pay back the community for damages. It is one thing to sue a company for damaging my land but another if it contaminates the entire town and the plant will not have the assets to replay the loss. Then again the community might forgo it to. I'll add that this would be less of an issue without zoning laws which set up these situations in the first place. But when moving from mixed economy to a free one this is an issue and I can see these steps being taken in the interim.

But it was signed into law by a Republican governor, so witness the whitewashing above ^^^^^. The law isn't so bad. It's just a one word change. Tesla is evil too. GM is evil. Saddam Hussein was evil. It rained yesterday in northern Idaho. Nothing to see here. Ignore the Republican behind the green curtain. Can you imagine the outrage among the Objectapublicans here if the same law was signed by a Democrat? The outrage would leap off the screen. Maybe I should have posted as much since they don't pay much much attention to facts anyhow...

The funny thing is that they explicitly stated that the reasoning behind this law is to artificially influence the free market. The goal is to preserve the business model and to "protect" it from a competing foreign business being able to come in and sell cars cheaper. I couldn't believe what I was reading or that anyone one in their right mind would actually support such an idea let alone make it into a law. It reminds me of a show I watched recently where these bookies in Boston protected their "market share" via real and non-hidden physical coercion. In reality there is no difference except that in the dealership case the market "protectors" is the government instead of old Boston guys pretending to be thugs.

Uh yeah, that's totally what I meant. I'm a socialist, totally. That's why I find this law so ghastly, because I hate free enterprise.