Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A ban of any proposed ban would keep government "small".
No. Allowing the smallest level of government, local cities/towns, to remain free to ban or not ban whatever they want would be consistent with a philosophy of "small government."
Proposing a ban on plastic bag bans is consistent with being in the pocket of the petroleum/plastic industry.
I get what you're saying, but I was under the assumption that conservatives (again a generalization) prefer local governments over state. The disdain for federal government initiatives is fairly obvious.
I don't see how a state preventing cities from banning anything keeps government small. Basically it says that people at the state government can serve as a nanny over the wishes of people at the smallest levels of government. If that's the government being proactive, no thanks.
Most Conservatives are Federalists - meaning that most of the power to legislate should remain with the state. Agreed that the closer a legislature is to it's constituents, the better, but if a local government imposes a law that subjects the people in that area to something the citizens find burdensome, they have every right to petition the state government for redress by asking the members they elected to the state house to enact legislation that trumps the burdensome local law.
No. Allowing the smallest level of government, local cities/towns, to remain free to ban or not ban whatever they want would be consistent with a philosophy of "small government."
Proposing a ban on plastic bag bans is consistent with being in the pocket of the petroleum/plastic industry.
Not necessarily, maybe the people that live where the ban was imposed went to their state reps and petitioned them to enact legislation banning the local law.
Why does everything have to come down to "BIG OIL"?
Most Conservatives are Federalists - meaning that most of the power to legislate should remain with the state. Agreed that the closer a legislature is to it's constituents, the better, but if a local government imposes a law that subjects the people in that area to something the citizens find burdensome, they have every right to petition the state government for redress by asking the members they elected to the state house to enact legislation that trumps the burdensome local law.
I think the part about being Federalists was the part I was missing. Thanks for the clarification!
I totally get wanting to go to a state if a local govt enacts something enough people at the municipal level find absurd. I'm just not sure I like this idea of preemptively banning a ban.
I think the part about being Federalists was the part I was missing. Thanks for the clarification!
I totally get wanting to go to a state if a local govt enacts something enough people at the municipal level find absurd. I'm just not sure I like this idea of preemptively banning a ban.
How can you pre-emptively ban a ban? You can't. Either the city has enacted a law banning something, then the state can pass a law stating that this kind of ban is not allowed by cities under state law. Or else, the state enacts a law that no bans on this activity are allowed, before any ban was in place.
The State is either enacting a law against bans or enacting a law that overrules an existing ban.
No. Allowing the smallest level of government, local cities/towns, to remain free to ban or not ban whatever they want would be consistent with a philosophy of "small government."
Proposing a ban on plastic bag bans is consistent with being in the pocket of the petroleum/plastic industry.
allowing "small governments" to implement a ban is them being "big government".
More rules and regulations is BIG GOVERNMENT even when implemented by small local governments.
Big vs small government is not based on size..state vs local.
It's intrusion into matters that the government should not be doing.
How can you pre-emptively ban a ban? You can't.
The State is either enacting a law against bans or enacting a law that overrules an existing ban.
LOL, I feel like we're talking past each other. The state of Arizona's legislature has submitted a bill to the governor that would prevent local municipalities from regulating the “sale, use or disposition of auxiliary containers,” which include single-use disposable bags, boxes, cans and bottles. It would also prohibit requirements for businesses to report energy use."
allowing "small governments" to implement a ban is them being "big government".
More rules and regulations is BIG GOVERNMENT even when implemented by small local governments.
Big vs small government is not based on size..state vs local.
It's intrusion into matters that the government should not be doing.
1) you state "matters that the government should not be doing" - who determines that?
To me, publicly elected officials who are closest to the voters ie municipalities, are in a much better place to make that decision than my state legislator.
2) you state "more rules is inherently big government" - so, it's okay when a state issues more rules, but not when a municipality does?
What if the majority of people in a municipality don't want to deal with the administrative costs ie clean up & disposal of plastic bags? Maybe they're tired of seeing the litter, maybe their local recycling program doesn't accept plastic bags... Shouldn't their local government be allowed to draft up a law that reflects the wants of the voter?
Additionally, if the state government can issue a preemptive ban like this, shouldn't responsible governing dictate some means for the state government to help pay for trash collection and handling of those bags?
This whole thing just wreaks of hypocrisy. I'm baffled that so many people seem willing to accept it if it coincides with their beliefs.
1) you state "matters that the government should not be doing" - who determines that?
To me, publicly elected officials who are closest to the voters ie municipalities, are in a much better place to make that decision than my state legislator.
2) you state "more rules is inherently big government" - so, it's okay when a state issues more rules, but not when a municipality does?
What if the majority of people in a municipality don't want to deal with the administrative costs ie clean up & disposal of plastic bags? Maybe they're tired of seeing the litter, maybe their local recycling program doesn't accept plastic bags... Shouldn't their local government be allowed to draft up a law that reflects the wants of the voter?
Additionally, if the state government can issue a preemptive ban like this, shouldn't responsible governing dictate some means for the state government to help pay for trash collection and handling of those bags?
This whole thing just wreaks of hypocrisy. I'm baffled that so many people seem willing to accept it if it coincides with their beliefs.
No, the point is that government has NO right to make that decision..no plastic bags just like they have no right to decide whether or not people drink soda in big cups or small.
If YOU think plastic bags are no good then don't use them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
