Hacker News Reader

Comment by drivingmenuts | Hacker News Reader

Welcome to Texas, where the state doeen't want to be responsible for anything, which makes me question why they exist in the first place.

View on HN

I suspect that is by-in-large the point of the US de-regulatory project. If one deconstructs the state to the point of ineffectiveness then its existence is largely pointless and reasonably easy to discard for a newer state. Of course this presents an opportunity to form a new state in a more desirable configuration for involved parties.

>Of course this presents an opportunity to form a new state in a more desirable configuration for involved parties.

Or more likely you will end up governed by monopoly corporations.

This is an involved party in my analysis.

The impression I get from friends living in TX who have been sympathetic to TX for their entire lives, is that it's been a slow process working towards effectively only having behavioral laws for poor people.

And yes, a common trope of their complaints is a kafkaesque system where it seemingly exists exclusively to be underfunded, under performing and practically intended to breed more resentment from the general population so that they're more amenable to just completely dismantling the civilian system altogether since they now see no incentive or convincing argument for it.

It's genuinely scary. Especially since you get to pretend like you're trying and the system just doesn't work, so we need to get rid of it to "save money".

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

--The other Frank Wilhoit

Except for denying women medical care and forcing them to carry nonviable, high risk pregnancies against their will. They absolutely love doing that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com