The pointy-haired boss is still clueless. Now, the world around him is just nonsensically shifting in a way that also makes most of us feel clueless, so we can empathize.
Funny how you criticize someone who pokes fun of people who fall into their own version of reality (and a giant corporate structure who encourages everyone to fall in line) as the one who is sinking into his own version of reality.
When I travel between states to partake in a service that is allowed in one state but not another that is not interstate commerce. I'm still conducting intrastate commerce within the state where I am located. The federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate all laws federally just because I can travel to a state with different laws.
Regarding bodily autonomy, it becomes a little tricky to make that argument when a mothers' decisions affect a separate body from her own. A body with its own DNA that happens to rely temporarily on her mother. Is the argument that a mother can kill her healthy child as long as it couldn't survive without her?
The Dobbs case has everything to do with whether or not a federal abortion law would be constitutional. The court determined on 10th amendment grounds that the constitution was silent on abortion. Therefore, that power belongs to each state. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Because they are pandering for votes. They know that the average citizen doesn't know that the law would be deemed unconstitutional based on the most recent ruling.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Abortion regulation powers were not delegated within the US Constitution and therefore those powers go to the states.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore each state has the power to legislate it as they see fit. Any federal abortion law would be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.
These media companies are regulated by the FCC, so media companies will now feel pressured to effectively regulate free speech on behalf of the political party in power to avoid any negative repercussions in unrelated matters.
It's disturbing that the constitution limits the government from quelling free speech so now the government is pressuring private companies to achieve what they are forbidden to do on their own.
A government middle man is not going to reduce income inequality. First, we need to decide whether or not inequality is necessarily a bad thing if everyone's situation is improving. Otherwise, it just comes off as covetousness. Second, we need to evaluate if mental health/drug rehabilitation facilities would solve a lot of the homelessness problem. Third, we need to reduce government restriction on building to put some downward pressure on housing costs or encourage people to establish employment or businesses in areas that are more economical.
Speech even without thought is still free speech. You would hope that the most thoughtful speech would be easily recognized and followed in place of its opposite. However, free speech does not exist in a world where only one group decides what is thoughtful speech.
A lot of people's thinking doesn't go beyond stage one. We should all be asking ourselves "then what will happen?" many times before advocating for economic policies, especially tax increases.
Assuming that the monetary supply is fixed, then there is a deflationary effect. Even those with less money are able to purchase more value as more value is created. This is why incentives for creating value are important to an economy as opposed to just increasing the monetary supply.
Money is just a tool to represent value. Value is not a zero-sum game. If a person creates something of value, she is creating something that did not exist before.
It's weird. Both the new_to_hn and man_made accounts were created within the last couple of hours. I wouldn't be surprised if they were created by the same person with a penchant for creating a username that mirrors the subject of his post.
OP was asking a genuine question that you not only did not answer, but that you then tried to cast some kind of judgment. Sometimes we need more information before jumping into the typical fray.
It depends. Do you believe that it is the role of government to build new housing or is it their role to create an environment that encourages new building supply? Is new housing not being built because of government regulation that deters new building or certain types of buildings?