Alternate headline suggestion: Tech companies join longstanding tradition of lawmaking by large companies. At this point is any intellectually curious person not convinced that large financial...
Alternate headline suggestion: Tech companies join longstanding tradition of lawmaking by large companies.
At this point is any intellectually curious person not convinced that large financial interests run government and control a large part of lawmaking?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this article talks about another example. But the way it's framed brings up something that mystifies me: We're well into late stage capitalism now. How much evidence do we need, over how much time, before we take this kind of corruption as a given and talk about it that way?
I imagined that by now, decades after the pretense of hiding it was abandoned, the larger cultural conversation around government and money would have changed more than it has.
I wonder sometimes if people just really want to believe in the story of a more idyllic world parents use to protect their kids. Badly enough to ignore the evidence.
I really hope this "no take-backsies" provision gets challenged in court, regardless of what else happens. This is an insanely stupid way of writing any legislation. Legislatures need the ability...
Included in Proposition 22’s fine print is a requirement that the measure cannot be modified with less than seven-eighths of the state legislature’s approval, all but ensuring it cannot be overturned.
I really hope this "no take-backsies" provision gets challenged in court, regardless of what else happens. This is an insanely stupid way of writing any legislation.
Legislatures need the ability to change laws to adapt them over time. Even constitutions (state & federal) have amendment processes that are less onerous than this. In California, for example, it's a two-thirds majority of the legislature and a simple majority of voters. I'm not aware of any other legislative process, anywhere in the world, with this 7/8ths requirement.
It's totally legal and the default is worse. California propositions are messed up. Propositions can't normally be overridden by the legislature at all without submitting the change to voters....
It's totally legal and the default is worse. California propositions are messed up.
Propositions can't normally be overridden by the legislature at all without submitting the change to voters. (See Ballotpedia.) Adding something to the proposition's text like this is slightly less strict and meant to allow for uncontroversial fixes to technical mistakes in how the proposition was drafted. (But they can and should have been more generous here.)
Also, I don't think there is anything preventing someone from trying to reverse it next election. Propositions aren't that hard to get on the ballot.
I was amazed by that too... that something like that can even legally exist. It's a short sighted overreach on the part of the ride sharing companies. Or at least I hope so. I suppose from their...
I was amazed by that too... that something like that can even legally exist.
It's a short sighted overreach on the part of the ride sharing companies. Or at least I hope so. I suppose from their perspective, if that part doesn't hold up, and the rest of the law does, they've lost nothing.
Alternate headline suggestion: Tech companies join longstanding tradition of lawmaking by large companies.
At this point is any intellectually curious person not convinced that large financial interests run government and control a large part of lawmaking?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this article talks about another example. But the way it's framed brings up something that mystifies me: We're well into late stage capitalism now. How much evidence do we need, over how much time, before we take this kind of corruption as a given and talk about it that way?
I imagined that by now, decades after the pretense of hiding it was abandoned, the larger cultural conversation around government and money would have changed more than it has.
I wonder sometimes if people just really want to believe in the story of a more idyllic world parents use to protect their kids. Badly enough to ignore the evidence.
I really hope this "no take-backsies" provision gets challenged in court, regardless of what else happens. This is an insanely stupid way of writing any legislation.
Legislatures need the ability to change laws to adapt them over time. Even constitutions (state & federal) have amendment processes that are less onerous than this. In California, for example, it's a two-thirds majority of the legislature and a simple majority of voters. I'm not aware of any other legislative process, anywhere in the world, with this 7/8ths requirement.
It's totally legal and the default is worse. California propositions are messed up.
Propositions can't normally be overridden by the legislature at all without submitting the change to voters. (See Ballotpedia.) Adding something to the proposition's text like this is slightly less strict and meant to allow for uncontroversial fixes to technical mistakes in how the proposition was drafted. (But they can and should have been more generous here.)
Also, I don't think there is anything preventing someone from trying to reverse it next election. Propositions aren't that hard to get on the ballot.
I was amazed by that too... that something like that can even legally exist.
It's a short sighted overreach on the part of the ride sharing companies. Or at least I hope so. I suppose from their perspective, if that part doesn't hold up, and the rest of the law does, they've lost nothing.