The toleration of intolerance has always been a thorny philosophical problem.
The WSJ article is clearly written as an homage to The Onion.
Finally, San Francisco is not a big enough market to swing anything (or almost anything). California is, particularly if there are at least a few producer states whose sympathies lie in the general direction the CA is trying to push (e.g. with vehicle emissions).
> What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali
That assumes:
* either pork production for CA takes place only inside CA or in other states they have two levels of pork production
* if the latter, this further requires that pork producers are happy maintaining two levels of production
* it also requires that no or few other states follow CA lead on requirements
> Regulation simply equals increased prices
Regulation is often (not always, but often) about bring externalities into the actual cost. So the full picture of the result of regulation needs to include:
* what were the externalities now being priced?
* where was the cost of the externalities previously experienced (e.g. poor communities dealing with runoff and waste from pork production)
* what was the full cost of the externalities before regulation bought some of them into the actual price?
* what are the remaining externalities after the regulation
adding additional friction to a process always increases the difficulty of the process and the cost of overcoming that friction is always borne by the consumer.
The framers of the constitution did not intend for presidential election by popular vote.
The intention was for state legislatures to nominate electors who would then vote for president.
It wasn't until mid 1800's that states started elections (of electors) by popular vote. Note: still through an elector proxy.
Also this is not a government run by popular vote, it is a mixture of state and population based government and also representation democracy not direct democracy.
In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.
The fact that people feel that states shouldn't have equal say and equal power is to me a huge breakdown of society.
Having California run the entire country would be a nightmare.
California could not win any popular vote about any matter whatsoever on its own.
The only thing that wins popular votes is ... having a majority of voters voting for it. Doesn't sound so bad does it? At least until you start to introduce the petty tribalism of "I don't want those folks who ain't from round here telling us what we can and can't do".
The real question is: there are obviously different "ideal sized bodies" for a popular vote controlled democracy, depending on the issue at hand. It probably is right that "folks from round here" get to decide a bunch of issues, without having to convince the whole country. And there are issues where you really should only be able to move forward with a popular vote across the whole country. So the question is: what's the right scale/scope of the voting entities for different kinds of issues?
I don't know the right answer, but I'm fairly sure that the states we have right now are not the correct choice for a lot of issues.
Direct democracy can come with and without a constitution that says the wolves cannot eat the sheep. I like the version with the constitution.
"Tyranny of the masses" is a red-herring. If your constitution (and its enforcement mechanisms) are good, the masses can't do anything to the minorities other than make them irritated (which is a condition we all live in from time to time). And if your constitution isn't good, then your "republic-not-a-democracy" is going to suck for some (or even all) people, too.
I don't agree that there are "no right sizes". I do agree that we don't know what they are yet.
States are not what we have, states are one-sized thing that we have, but we also have villages, towns, cities, counties and even in some cases and for some purposes, regions. And while you may think that its fine, others do not.
When you have so many mergers/aq. that build de facto monopolies there's no incentive for companies to care about their employees and the emphasis becomes on the image of caring vs actual caring.
As the employee has a small selection of companies to work for and jobs become about bureaucracy and politics instead of actual `work` and there's not much you as employee can do about it.
The companies not caring about customers but pretending to is another story tangential to this one.
You may want to look into this further as it is fascinating. For example, a theoretical reorg to unspend or respend your own transaction does not allow signing transactions for others.
> How could you extrapolate that seeing the same office people everyday all day is good for.yiur social life.
Because it's easier to interact with someone when we are dealing with the same project / sharing the experience of being an employee for the same company?
Yep. It's about the constant and intentionless interactions. Not something you can easily replicate outside, even in coworking spaces. Don't get me wrong - it is possible -, but if I am struggling to make the adjustments required (and I am fairly social person), I can only imagine how hard it can be for less well connected people. Make no mistake, this is only going to aggravate our "loneliness epidemic".
