Riots in Minneapolis

Monahorns said:
Allowing state lines to change and conform more to natural constituencies would greatly improve the peace of this country. Eastern WA, OR, and CA all have more in kind with Idaho than the Western parts of their states. If there is enough popular will for it, we should respect their right to do so.

Politics might not be so contentious if people felt there was a way out of being forced to live under the rule of "others".
Click to expand...

That sounds rational until you look at how to actually manage that. What I hear you advocating for is amorphous state borders. It's not so easy as saying "Eastern Washington culture is more of a match to Idaho than Washington". There is Congressional representation, state services, state college system, energy production and an uncountable number of ties that bind the State together. >50% of the kids in the 3 state schools on the Eastern side of the state are children of Western Washington families.

What's the process for deciding who get's to shift and to where? Referendum? Statewide or local? How local? Should a city get to decide? Do they have to be on the border of said state they want to join? What about an inland town? Does it have to be a town? Hypothetically, should the Branch Davidian's been able to secede should they chose? Do they have to choose a state? I have no problem with a statewide referendum like they are trying to get in California. Put in up to a State vote because it impacts everyone in the state.

This is where the libertarian philosophy faceplants, IMHO. "Let everyone do their own thing" isn't operationally possible. There is a much easier solution than changing state borders to those who don't like the laws they are living under. Move.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That sounds rational until you look at how to actually manage that. What I hear you advocating for is amorphous state borders. It's not so easy as saying "Eastern Washington culture is more of a match to Idaho than Washington". There is Congressional representation, state services, state college system, energy production and an uncountable number of ties that bind the State together. >50% of the kids in the 3 state schools on the Eastern side of the state are children of Western Washington families.

What's the process for deciding who get's to shift and to where? Referendum? Statewide or local? How local? Should a city get to decide? Do they have to be on the border of said state they want to join? What about an inland town? Does it have to be a town? Hypothetically, should the Branch Davidian's been able to secede should they chose? Do they have to choose a state? I have no problem with a statewide referendum like they are trying to get in California. Put in up to a State vote because it impacts everyone in the state.

This is where the libertarian philosophy faceplants, IMHO. "Let everyone do their own thing" isn't operationally possible. There is a much easier solution than changing state borders to those who don't like the laws they are living under. Move.
Click to expand...

I don't think any Libertarian actually wants arbitrary borders that shift around. It's quite literally about limiting government as much as possible to stay out of people's lives. Not letting government legislate or dictate how we live or what we can or cannot do. It's also why we have states and even more local jurisdictions. The Federal government isn't supposed to rule absolutely over every state.
 
That sounds rational until you look at how to actually manage that. What I hear you advocating for is amorphous state borders. It's not so easy as saying "Eastern Washington culture is more of a match to Idaho than Washington". There is Congressional representation, state services, state college system, energy production and an uncountable number of ties that bind the State together. >50% of the kids in the 3 state schools on the Eastern side of the state are children of Western Washington families.
Click to expand...

Those are all good points you raise. There are many questions that would have to be answered in order to make this a reality. But I think it is all possible with compromise, phases, allowances, etc.

What's the process for deciding who get's to shift and to where? Referendum? Statewide or local? How local? Should a city get to decide? Do they have to be on the border of said state they want to join? What about an inland town? Does it have to be a town? Hypothetically, should the Branch Davidian's been able to secede should they chose? Do they have to choose a state? I have no problem with a statewide referendum like they are trying to get in California. Put in up to a State vote because it impacts everyone in the state.
Click to expand...

All you have to have is political will solidified internally and outside forces willing to live and let live. There are multiple cities in Mexico that have expelled all politicians and government simply by making a declaration and guarding their borders. There is more peace and prosperity. They still trade with the outside world. There is still travel in and out, but not if you are with the government. The Mexican federal government has respected their boundaries.
 
I don't think any Libertarian actually wants arbitrary borders that shift around. It's quite literally about limiting government as much as possible to stay out of people's lives. Not letting government legislate or dictate how we live or what we can or cannot do. It's also why we have states and even more local jurisdictions. The Federal government isn't supposed to rule absolutely over every state.
Click to expand...

2003TexasGrad, I agree Libertarians don't want amorphous states (some want NO state) but to work within current levels of government as you state. There is a huge barrier of time, effort, and money to change states/city affiliation. That means the borders won't change frequently, only when the pain is great enough for enough people would there be proposals. I consider right now just such a time. The urban/rural split is how it falls right now and poses some issues about how would liberal cities be handled in a more conservative general region. I recognize that.
 
Monahorns said:
2003TexasGrad, I agree Libertarians don't want amorphous states (some want NO state) but to work within current levels of government as you state. There is a huge barrier of time, effort, and money to change states/city affiliation. That means the borders won't change frequently, only when the pain is great enough for enough people would there be proposals. I consider right now just such a time. The urban/rural split is how it falls right now and poses some issues about how would liberal cities be handled in a more conservative general region. I recognize that.
Click to expand...

I hereby welcome Austin into Western Washington. ;)
 
2003TexasGrad said:
I don't think any Libertarian actually wants arbitrary borders that shift around. It's quite literally about limiting government as much as possible to stay out of people's lives. Not letting government legislate or dictate how we live or what we can or cannot do. It's also why we have states and even more local jurisdictions. The Federal government isn't supposed to rule absolutely over every state.
Click to expand...
Limiting the powers of the federal government is precisely what our Constitution does. Although, over the decades, it has been interpreted to do many entirely different things.

The Anti-Federalists (proto-Democrats) wanted, and mostly got for almost a century, a very limited federal government. But even they wanted the States to have broad police powers--which the Constitution permits, for the States.
 
Limiting the powers of the federal government is precisely what our Constitution does. Although, over the decades, it has been interpreted to do many entirely different things.

The Anti-Federalists (proto-Democrats) wanted, and mostly got for almost a century, a very limited federal government. But even they wanted the States to have broad police powers--which the Constitution permits, for the States.
Click to expand...

Talk about a face palm. The Constitution doesn't limit anything. The Federal Government does what it wants. If it abides by some part of it, it is only because those in power want to, not because there is anything holding them back. Even the Supreme Court rules in ways the obviously violate the Constitution. They think more about politics than what the document says.

Don't know what you mean by broad police powers. There were no police per se in those days. But yes there was consensus that the government runs security of the national borders. I think there is still consensus about that. If only we could limit them to that.
 
The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. The government has frequently ignored and violated these boundaries, and has mostly gotten away with it. The rule of law exists, but it has been repeatedly violated.

A weakness of the system is that the SCOTUS can itself opine in ways that violate the rule of law. The way Marbury has been interpreted,* the SCOTUS can, and has, effectively rewritten the Constitution to fit their own agendas. Many believe the judiciary is just another political branch. It’s getting tougher and tougher to argue against them.


* for an alternate view on Marbury, check the writings of Ed Meese.
 
Chop said:
The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. The government has frequently ignored and violated these boundaries, and has mostly gotten away with it. The rule of law exists, but it has been repeatedly violated.

A weakness of the system is that the SCOTUS can itself opine in ways that violate the rule of law. The way Marbury has been interpreted,* the SCOTUS can, and has, effectively rewritten the Constitution to fit their own agendas. Many believe the judiciary is just another political branch. It’s getting tougher and tougher to argue against them.


* for an alternate view on Marbury, check the writings of Ed Meese.
Click to expand...


The next 4 years is going to test the boundries of state and federal power. Especially with new gun laws. Now we have some states that are becoming gun sanctuary states. The Feds want to beef up the ATF for these new laws but they are still heavily reliant on local law enforcement to do the dirty work. Texas has sanctuary counties and I'm looking to move to one right now.

With gun sanctuary states basically giving the Feds a big FU to new gun laws I'm curious how the feds will force compliance.
 
Sheldon Cooper said:
The next 4 years is going to test the boundries of state and federal power. Especially with new gun laws. Now we have some states that are becoming gun sanctuary states. The Feds want to beef up the ATF for these new laws but they are still heavily reliant on local law enforcement to do the dirty work. Texas has sanctuary counties and I'm looking to move to one right now.

With gun sanctuary states basically giving the Feds a big FU to new gun laws I'm curious how the feds will force compliance.
Click to expand...
An interesting factor in how this will play out is that the SCOTUS now consists of mostly justices who generally favor states' rights.

Back to the original topic: nothing much is happening in Minneapolis anymore with regard to riots, civil unrest, etc., right?

I think:

(i) it played itself out,
(ii) some of the rioting types don't want to smear the new President (although plenty of them do),
(iii) it's been really cold up there lately, and
(iv) there are new bright shiny objects to ponder.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
It wasn't a huge local story. It's a bigger story to FoxNews than locals. Surprised?

Seattle Times. Yes, they carried the AP story.
KOMO News This story has the most detail. KOMO is also a Sinclair owned station thus has a conservative bias.

Summary: Homeless advocacy organization had paid for 17 rooms in the hotel. Armed group (45?) associated with the same homeless advocacy organization walk into hotel demanding 40 rooms. 10 people detained. 3 facing felony charges (2 of which had previous outstanding felony warrants).

Homelessness is a serious problem in Western Washington for a myriad of reasons. 1) Our housing is astronomically expensive due to extreme land limitations since we have mountains on one side and water on the other. Additionally, the pervasiveness of Hi-Tech companies offering lucrative salaries. 2) Moderate climate. It never gets too hot and rarely freezes. 3) A culture that is empathetic to the needs of the homeless population.

Are these populations taking the lead of BLM/Anarchy protests? I have no idea. Clearly they are getting more demanding for solutions recently. I do wonder if the Pandemic is causing a swelling of the homeless population that is forcing this issue on local municipalities.
Click to expand...

A little more background on this story. It's a hotel managed by a management company in which a very close family member is very high in the Mgmt. As they stated it, this didn’t happen how it was presented by a single employee that went to the press, against hotel policy. Yes, there were 2-3 individuals that had knives. There were no machetes, gas masks or clubs. At no point were hotel employees threatened during the takeover. The only injury was a non-related guest and drug induced.

It was actually a stealth takeover. 17 rooms rented for homeless which housed 36 people. A few more rooms rented by activists. They covered the hallway video cameras. As guests were leaving they were there to slip into open rooms. According to my family member more damage was done by the SWAT team than the activists/homeless. This same organization had done something similar in Fife, WA back in December.

The aftermath has been worse due to social media. The employee that went to the press has been terminated for reasons unrelated to the incident. Now the hotel is receiving consistent harrassing calls and random people (not homeless, all men) walking into the hotel to yell at the staff for termination of said employee.

The hotel simply wants to stay out of this political fight. As told to me from this family member that voted for Trump, it wasn't at all like it was depicted by the media nor was it nothing. They took over 3 floors and paying customers were upset. This was "theft" by the activists and this family member confirmed that Olympia (the city) often purchases blocks of rooms to house homeless as part of it's efforts to combat homelessness so it was a bad place for the activists to attack other than it's our State Capital.
 
Nothing to see here folks, move along. A rogue employee reported a few people with knives took over the hotel. He/she/it has been terminated. All is well in Olympia as it is in Fife.
 
Haha, you’re right SH. Who cares when it’s a ‘stealth takeover’.
But no doubt the media coverage is inaccurately depicting the entire incident. When is it accurate lately?
 
nashhorn said:
Haha, you’re right SH. Who cares when it’s a ‘stealth takeover’.
But no doubt the media coverage is inaccurately depicting the entire incident. When is it accurate lately?
Click to expand...
Spinsters....it used to mean old unmarried lady...I think I'll re-appropriate this term to mean ...>>>>journalist
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm glad they're doing it. I just hope the courts are willing to recognize the action and let it proceed.
Click to expand...
Looks like a sovereign immunity issue. Don't see how that case can be won. Elections have consequences, and electing Democrats will eventually make all of us poor. That is what their policies do despite their rhetorical claims to the contrary.
 
Here is the thing I don't get. Only a few will reap the financial rewards so why would anyone intelligent vote for policies that will end up making things worse for them?
 
iatrogenic said:
Looks like a sovereign immunity issue. Don't see how that case can be won. Elections have consequences, and electing Democrats will eventually make all of us poor. That is what their policies do despite their rhetorical claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...
There still could be a piercing on reasonableness...the actions were NOT reasonable and WERE something that can be shown as a proximate cause of the harm. Still a challenge, but when one is deliberate in the abdication of responsibilities, it CAN be easier to win litigation against a jurisdiction.
 
mb227 said:
There still could be a piercing on reasonableness...the actions were NOT reasonable and WERE something that can be shown as a proximate cause of the harm. Still a challenge, but when one is deliberate in the abdication of responsibilities, it CAN be easier to win litigation against a jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Of course, I hope you are correct!
 
iatrogenic said:
Looks like a sovereign immunity issue. Don't see how that case can be won. Elections have consequences, and electing Democrats will eventually make all of us poor. That is what their policies do despite their rhetorical claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

mb227 said:
There still could be a piercing on reasonableness...the actions were NOT reasonable and WERE something that can be shown as a proximate cause of the harm. Still a challenge, but when one is deliberate in the abdication of responsibilities, it CAN be easier to win litigation against a jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to find a copy of the complaint to read the theory of liability. (I don't have a PACER account anymore.) However, the case is being brought in federal court. Since the plaintiffs are Minnesotans, I assume they're suing under federal civil rights law. That can help get them around the sovereign immunity problem. However, I don't know of a federal civil rights law that their case would fit neatly into. They'll probably try to squeeze it into a Sec. 1983 case, but that's not my area of expertise.

@mb227 , a defendant acting unreasonably doesn't get you around a sovereign immunity defense unless you have a law that gives you a limited waiver such as the Texas Tort Claims Act. (There's also a federal act.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top