The facts seem to show that a higher minimum wage leads to less unemployment rather then the other way around
- no, there is no causality where you found it. Lower minimum wage means the price of labour is lower, we consume more of that, which is cheaper. There are too many other factors at play, major ones are that the unemployment didn't start with the service industry, it started with the most productive industries that moved out of the USA due to the cost of doing business.
USA is full of government workers, service sector workers, financial workers, health care workers and such, it has very few manufacturing jobs and it's losing more of them by the hour. Eventually this spreads to other jobs and the minimum wage does not help with the already non-functioning economy, which was destroyed by government induced inflation (money printing, borrowing at artificially low interest rates).
Again, the restaurants are losing business because people can no longer afford to eat out, there will be fewer and fewer even minimum wage jobs around, so raising the minimum wage at this point in the USA will simply speed up the coming economic collapse.
I don't follow Australia economy much, so won't talk about it. With the restaurants scaling down and closing there will be way fewer jobs for grilling sandwiches but there will always be a few who will still do it at whatever the minimum wage of the time is and the top 1% will still be able to afford their services.
Minimum wage will put the people getting it out of jobs and the businesses will shut down too (or it will be the owners themselves grilling that cheese).
This line of argument is as wrongheaded as the line of argument used to justify government mandating minimum wage.
You see, minimum wage is the limit on minimum ability. It is not about a company being forced to pay some minimum to the lowest hires, it is about the overall plank for the lowest hires to be set at a certain ability that corresponds to the minimum wage. This means that the lowest runs of economic ladder are kicked from under the people who are at the bottom of it.
Minimum wage prevents people with no skills (and other useful traits) from finding jobs.
This law is similar in nature, it does not prevent Linked In from having a user base, it prevents the Russians living in Russia from having an account with Linked In.
Linked In, like many other online services has certain expenses and Russia just raised the level of this expenses to make Russian users unappealing.
Another argument I would make is that probably *none* of the Russians who actually use Linked In are concerned with their security on the site, the Russian government is not concerned with their security either. It is however concerned with its ability to police the users of the site and to be able to demand and get information about the users.
Now also realise that most businesses will not set up extra servers in Russia and will not modify their software and business model to that effect, so what Russians will end up with is a gigantic reduction in services and thus in quality of life because their prices will go up for various products and services given that they would have to accept some local analogues of the service that is no longer going to be provided. I would argue they would also accept lower level of security where it matters, because while having your money stolen is bad, having your life examined by the politicians and other bureaucrats in Russia might be worse.
So to reiterate now many Russians will no longer have access to their foreign bank accounts, foreign insurance companies, ways to buy tickets online for flights, train trips, events, etc.etc.etc. Do you actually think the Russians who are used to be able to enjoy such services voted for any of this???? Curious.
Actually, starting a business is exactly what gives the government the right to hit you with additional rules and regulations.
- that's pure nonsense. Government doesn't have any authority to oppress individuals by taking their rights away because an individual starts a business. A business is like any other activity, does not give government more authority over a person.
You are voluntarily entering into a public commerce agreement with the government
- nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, a business is not in any agreement with any government, a business is a proposition to the public.
as you have to get a business licence and to get that licence
- oppression and discrimination, destruction of individual rights. Government does not have licensing authority of any kind, it is clearly a violation of individual rights for government to demand licensing for an activity.
you agree to abide by the rules and regulations required for that industry as set by your county
- nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, you are not agreeing to abide by any rules, you are offering a product and/or a service to the public, who is perfectly capable of either buying your product/service or not. As to a 'country', that's a completely arbitrary and (AFAIC) a meaningless limitation imposed by chance of birth, it doesn't mean a thing except delimiting sphere of influence for a set of politicians and their ability to regulate business is not inherent to a government function, it is simply a way to extract wealth from the productive part of the society to buy influence.
By setting up a public front where you solicit money from the public, you agree to serve the entire public, not just the portion of the public you see fit to serve
- again, government getting onto somebody's private property and forcing the property owner to run it in a specific way is oppressive.
Christian bookstores must serve Muslims, landlords in white neighborhoods must rent to qualified black people and bakeries ran by Christians must serve gay people.
- 'must', 'must', 'must' - that's the oppression that I am talking about, that is the wrong that the government commits every day.
If you want to discriminate against whoever you like then, don't open a business of any kind.
- why? Try and think about it for a second, there is no moral or economic justification for that position.
It is immoral because it destroys the *right* of an individual to discriminate, to associate, to run private property.
It is economically illiterate because makes 0 sense in the free market to force any business to do anything, to serve anybody. The portion of the public that ends up being discriminated against simply represents a wonderful opportunity for somebody who is not discriminating and creates extra markets, extra business opportunities without the need for the oppressive apparatus.
remember that money is a government created and owned entity in every country in the world.
- actually you are wrong, *paper currency minted by the government of that State* is but not money.
Money is created by businesses, not by governments. Governments cannot actually create money, they can only print fiat that means zip if there are no businesses that produce the value (goods and services) within the economy. If you believe that the ability to print paper is the same as creating money try printing your own paper and see if it takes off.
Oh, and your "inalienable rights" only go so far as they don't violate someone else's rights.
- again, you are not taking anybody's rights away as a private entity discriminating against another private entity.
Rights can only be taken away by governments, by the State not by private individuals. Go
A country can be moving either one way or another (if the people realise they are going the wrong way). Countries that are collectivist and moving towards more collectivism slide towards authoritarianism.
Gotcha. So you want 'separate but equal' for blacks to make a comeback.
- I don't have a position on that at all.
You read my position, it should be crystal clear: any individual and/or company he is running has inalienable right to discriminate against any other individual or a group of people based on any criteria.
The only entity that must not be able to discriminate is the government, because it sets laws that must be applied equally to all people.
As I said: those who are collectivists and not fully authoritarian yet are on their way there (or they are on their way to the opposite, Scandinavian countries are moving in the correct direction, slowly away from collectivism). I am not talking about a moment in time, I am talking about tendencies and eventual inevitable outcomes.
So if Apple is holding data for four months, that could be a very interesting data repository and they may have data that the telecom provider might not.
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins. The correct decision is the latter.
- it's completely wrong because it's based on a ruse.
There is no right to anybody's labour. There is no right to anybody's labour.
Which part of "there is no right to anybody's labour" is unclear?
In fact a right is a protection against government oppression and it is not an obligation placed on a person and an entitlement provided to another person by government oppression.
No freedom is in the Constitution, Constitution sets the law above government, not above individuals. Constitution does not take or give freedoms, it spells out a list of government authorities. Amendments are an abomination to that principle.
That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?
- not only I am OK with it, I strongly believe that it is an inalienable right of an individual and/or a business that an individual is running to discriminate. Only governments must not be allowed to discriminate specifically because governments pass and apply laws and laws must be applied equally.
and you absolutely should be able to discriminate against any group, including gays or people of any race, colour, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, age group, political inclination, ability/disability, etc. You should be able to discriminate against anybody you do not want to associate with, it is government that is not supposed to discriminate because it is supposed to treat everybody equally under law.
Individuals who run businesses must not lose their right to discriminate just because they started a company.
If you think you do not discriminate ask yourself this: have you ever considered who surrounds you when renting/buying a place? When dating? When buying food? When lending money to? etc. I don't think there is one person on this planet who would not use discrimination of one sort or another based on some group categorization.
We discriminate against groups of people on daily basis, it is our inalienable right to discriminate against people without government oppressing us. We discriminate who we date, who we work with, where we purchase goods, where we live, etc.
OTOH government does not have authority to discriminate against groups of people, government is the only entity that must not be allowed to discriminate.
Just because you started a business does not give the government an authority to oppress you for your inalienable right.
But as a 'progressive' (I always place quotes around such monikers, they are meaningless to me, I don't view the collectivists as progressive, I view them as anti-individual rights people) who is able to see this, don't you find that this was an inevitable?
USSR, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., when did collectivist policies *not* lead to the total destruction of the individual by placing the collective above all?
Same exact inevitability is within other forms of collectivism (religions, nationalism/fascism, etc.)
Whenever you have a movement of people who are aiming to elevate the collective and thus the government over the individual you will have this outcome, when did it not happen? If there is a collectivist system today that is still not fully authoritarian/dictatorial, it is on the way there.
Fucking piece of shit government is constantly getting involved where it absolutely does not belong for any god-damn reason. The car manufacturers don't want to get sued, whether they decide to use noise or some other method of projecting the presence of the vehicle is up to them. Government getting into these thing is how you get Pi=3.2.
The part where you think that other politicians do not.
- first of all I did not say that and secondly you have to make sure you put a caveat in that that you do not in fact know that the private opinion of every single politician is not the same as the public one.
But back to the point at hand, Clinton's public and private positions are now out in the open, Trump's public position is in direct contradiction to Obama's and Clinton's. So my comment stands: it is *embarrassing* for Obama, since basically Trump's public position is to kill TPP and if Obama enacts TPP today then the public idea is that Trump would kill it, and by the way this would take Trump to the left of Obama apparently, so it is *embarrassing*.
AFAIC Obama is an embarrassment on everything, but that's a different story.
Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?
As to Trump, whether he would back TPP or not, his public position made it *embarrassing* for Obama, because if Trump immediately undid what Obama enacted, it would be such an embarrassment, wouldn't it?
Obama has no legacy left, he is embarrassed, he is so fucking embarrassed.
With you 100%. I must say though, I was just talking about secession here with Bruce Perens, he is under impression that people are not interested in individual freedom because they want to live on handouts. I think everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else, freedom of association is extremely important for private property rights and AFAIC the top rights are: the right to life (government must not deprive you of your life), freedom (government must not deprive you of freedom), property (government must not deprive you of property), everything else is secondary but it follows. The right to free speech means government must not deny you the right to speak freely but this right only is relevant when you have to speak to protect yourself, protect yourself from government trying to destroy your other rights.
The same concept applies to the right of association, government must not punish you for associating or not associating with other people.
This is what rights are: protections against government oppression, protections of your individual self, your self-determination. Apparently people are under impression that having a subsidy trumps (can anybody use this word now without invoking the images of this election?) other freedoms. I don't think so, I think people want to be free, they want to determine their own fate and future, they will choose freedom over subsidy.
Of-course some will ensure subsidy over freedom, but this implies that somebody else has to be made 'not free', somebody else's freedom must be taken away to provide that subsidy and this must not stand.
My point is that everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else and to associate freely with anybody else. The underlying principle here is that nobody should be ruling anybody else, we are all individuals and we must not be ruled.
As to Silicon Valley, many there are clearly interested in ruling others and now they are terrified to be ruled all of a sudden. I have no sympathy but I think this is a good lesson.
In abstract anything is possible, my position does not change one bit. It is an immoral state of affairs that some should be subsidised by others through government oppression.
It is immoral on a number of fronts. It is immoral because it uses force to steal and redistribute.
It is immoral because it creates dependency that wouldn't exist if there was no subsidy, so it creates servitude, it creates expectation of the subsidy, it creates reliance that cannot be sustained (and it shouldn't).
So what happens when this system breaks anyway, because *it will break*? What will the people who used to get the subsidies do, how will they survive when they have not developed the tools for their personal survival because of this subsidy and reliance and dependence?
Turning people into eternal children is immoral and horrible for those very people. To argue otherwise is to say that some never deserve to grow up and never deserve their right to self determination, their independence.
Just to make it crystal clear, I believe all subsidies provided through the government oppression of taxing some to redistribute to others are evil and immoral and shouldn't exist. If a State gets subsidies it means it generates net loss through its own economic activity, this is not a normal or a natural state of affairs, this is very much likely a result of government intervention in the first place otherwise it wouldn't exist.
People balance their books on their own when there is nobody there to 'help' them and with everything that governments do, the type of 'help' that people get only prevents them from balancing their own books. The government breaks their legs and gives them crutches. Why should anybody with any self respect be willing to live that way, why should that be the status quo?
I don't believe we've met, but you are immediately assuming that I am after your money for some reason. AFAIC it doesn't matter what the State is and what it gets vs what it pays, it is a moral imperative not to steal from others with the barrel of a government gun (or any gun for that matter).
I think States should secede based on the principle of non aggression and self determination. California should secede, so should NY, Texas, eventually no State would be able to receive any goods from others and there would be no point in that fake union in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That tells us nothing. If you want to put it that way, everybody is running a medical experiment on themselves
-no, an actual medical experiment, but that is really none of your business, is it?
The facts seem to show that a higher minimum wage leads to less unemployment rather then the other way around
- no, there is no causality where you found it. Lower minimum wage means the price of labour is lower, we consume more of that, which is cheaper. There are too many other factors at play, major ones are that the unemployment didn't start with the service industry, it started with the most productive industries that moved out of the USA due to the cost of doing business.
USA is full of government workers, service sector workers, financial workers, health care workers and such, it has very few manufacturing jobs and it's losing more of them by the hour. Eventually this spreads to other jobs and the minimum wage does not help with the already non-functioning economy, which was destroyed by government induced inflation (money printing, borrowing at artificially low interest rates).
Again, the restaurants are losing business because people can no longer afford to eat out, there will be fewer and fewer even minimum wage jobs around, so raising the minimum wage at this point in the USA will simply speed up the coming economic collapse.
Real unemployment in USA is in double digits, people without work cannot afford these sandwiches, so people eat out much less than before and so restaurants are scaling down.
I don't follow Australia economy much, so won't talk about it. With the restaurants scaling down and closing there will be way fewer jobs for grilling sandwiches but there will always be a few who will still do it at whatever the minimum wage of the time is and the top 1% will still be able to afford their services.
Minimum wage will put the people getting it out of jobs and the businesses will shut down too (or it will be the owners themselves grilling that cheese).
This line of argument is as wrongheaded as the line of argument used to justify government mandating minimum wage.
You see, minimum wage is the limit on minimum ability. It is not about a company being forced to pay some minimum to the lowest hires, it is about the overall plank for the lowest hires to be set at a certain ability that corresponds to the minimum wage. This means that the lowest runs of economic ladder are kicked from under the people who are at the bottom of it.
Minimum wage prevents people with no skills (and other useful traits) from finding jobs.
This law is similar in nature, it does not prevent Linked In from having a user base, it prevents the Russians living in Russia from having an account with Linked In.
Linked In, like many other online services has certain expenses and Russia just raised the level of this expenses to make Russian users unappealing.
Another argument I would make is that probably *none* of the Russians who actually use Linked In are concerned with their security on the site, the Russian government is not concerned with their security either. It is however concerned with its ability to police the users of the site and to be able to demand and get information about the users.
Now also realise that most businesses will not set up extra servers in Russia and will not modify their software and business model to that effect, so what Russians will end up with is a gigantic reduction in services and thus in quality of life because their prices will go up for various products and services given that they would have to accept some local analogues of the service that is no longer going to be provided. I would argue they would also accept lower level of security where it matters, because while having your money stolen is bad, having your life examined by the politicians and other bureaucrats in Russia might be worse.
So to reiterate now many Russians will no longer have access to their foreign bank accounts, foreign insurance companies, ways to buy tickets online for flights, train trips, events, etc.etc.etc. Do you actually think the Russians who are used to be able to enjoy such services voted for any of this???? Curious.
The IRS has greater powers because of the 16th Amendment
- actually not because of any amendment, the IRS has its powers because the government decided it wants your money, not due to any amendments.
Actually, starting a business is exactly what gives the government the right to hit you with additional rules and regulations.
- that's pure nonsense. Government doesn't have any authority to oppress individuals by taking their rights away because an individual starts a business. A business is like any other activity, does not give government more authority over a person.
You are voluntarily entering into a public commerce agreement with the government
- nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, a business is not in any agreement with any government, a business is a proposition to the public.
as you have to get a business licence and to get that licence
- oppression and discrimination, destruction of individual rights. Government does not have licensing authority of any kind, it is clearly a violation of individual rights for government to demand licensing for an activity.
you agree to abide by the rules and regulations required for that industry as set by your county
- nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, you are not agreeing to abide by any rules, you are offering a product and/or a service to the public, who is perfectly capable of either buying your product/service or not. As to a 'country', that's a completely arbitrary and (AFAIC) a meaningless limitation imposed by chance of birth, it doesn't mean a thing except delimiting sphere of influence for a set of politicians and their ability to regulate business is not inherent to a government function, it is simply a way to extract wealth from the productive part of the society to buy influence.
By setting up a public front where you solicit money from the public, you agree to serve the entire public, not just the portion of the public you see fit to serve
- again, government getting onto somebody's private property and forcing the property owner to run it in a specific way is oppressive.
Christian bookstores must serve Muslims, landlords in white neighborhoods must rent to qualified black people and bakeries ran by Christians must serve gay people.
- 'must', 'must', 'must' - that's the oppression that I am talking about, that is the wrong that the government commits every day.
If you want to discriminate against whoever you like then, don't open a business of any kind.
- why? Try and think about it for a second, there is no moral or economic justification for that position.
It is immoral because it destroys the *right* of an individual to discriminate, to associate, to run private property.
It is economically illiterate because makes 0 sense in the free market to force any business to do anything, to serve anybody. The portion of the public that ends up being discriminated against simply represents a wonderful opportunity for somebody who is not discriminating and creates extra markets, extra business opportunities without the need for the oppressive apparatus.
remember that money is a government created and owned entity in every country in the world.
- actually you are wrong, *paper currency minted by the government of that State* is but not money.
Money is created by businesses, not by governments. Governments cannot actually create money, they can only print fiat that means zip if there are no businesses that produce the value (goods and services) within the economy. If you believe that the ability to print paper is the same as creating money try printing your own paper and see if it takes off.
Oh, and your "inalienable rights" only go so far as they don't violate someone else's rights.
- again, you are not taking anybody's rights away as a private entity discriminating against another private entity.
Rights can only be taken away by governments, by the State not by private individuals. Go
A country can be moving either one way or another (if the people realise they are going the wrong way). Countries that are collectivist and moving towards more collectivism slide towards authoritarianism.
Gotcha. So you want 'separate but equal' for blacks to make a comeback.
- I don't have a position on that at all.
You read my position, it should be crystal clear: any individual and/or company he is running has inalienable right to discriminate against any other individual or a group of people based on any criteria.
The only entity that must not be able to discriminate is the government, because it sets laws that must be applied equally to all people.
As I said: those who are collectivists and not fully authoritarian yet are on their way there (or they are on their way to the opposite, Scandinavian countries are moving in the correct direction, slowly away from collectivism). I am not talking about a moment in time, I am talking about tendencies and eventual inevitable outcomes.
So if Apple is holding data for four months, that could be a very interesting data repository and they may have data that the telecom provider might not.
Cook: "In my point of view, [privacy] is a civil liberty that our Founding Fathers thought of a long time ago and concluded it was an essential part of what it was to be an American. Sort of on the level, if you will, with freedom of speech, freedom of the press."
So, Timmy, is privacy worth being protected or not? How is this 'protecting privacy'? Just because you can obtain these logs, why are you doing it?
When the right to free speech conflicts with the right to equal protection, you have to decide which right wins. The correct decision is the latter.
- it's completely wrong because it's based on a ruse.
There is no right to anybody's labour.
There is no right to anybody's labour.
Which part of "there is no right to anybody's labour" is unclear?
In fact a right is a protection against government oppression and it is not an obligation placed on a person and an entitlement provided to another person by government oppression.
The entire concept is completely flawed.
No freedom is in the Constitution, Constitution sets the law above government, not above individuals. Constitution does not take or give freedoms, it spells out a list of government authorities. Amendments are an abomination to that principle.
That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?
- not only I am OK with it, I strongly believe that it is an inalienable right of an individual and/or a business that an individual is running to discriminate. Only governments must not be allowed to discriminate specifically because governments pass and apply laws and laws must be applied equally.
and you absolutely should be able to discriminate against any group, including gays or people of any race, colour, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, age group, political inclination, ability/disability, etc. You should be able to discriminate against anybody you do not want to associate with, it is government that is not supposed to discriminate because it is supposed to treat everybody equally under law.
Individuals who run businesses must not lose their right to discriminate just because they started a company.
If you think you do not discriminate ask yourself this: have you ever considered who surrounds you when renting/buying a place? When dating? When buying food? When lending money to? etc. I don't think there is one person on this planet who would not use discrimination of one sort or another based on some group categorization.
We discriminate against groups of people on daily basis, it is our inalienable right to discriminate against people without government oppressing us. We discriminate who we date, who we work with, where we purchase goods, where we live, etc.
OTOH government does not have authority to discriminate against groups of people, government is the only entity that must not be allowed to discriminate.
Just because you started a business does not give the government an authority to oppress you for your inalienable right.
But as a 'progressive' (I always place quotes around such monikers, they are meaningless to me, I don't view the collectivists as progressive, I view them as anti-individual rights people) who is able to see this, don't you find that this was an inevitable?
USSR, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., when did collectivist policies *not* lead to the total destruction of the individual by placing the collective above all?
Same exact inevitability is within other forms of collectivism (religions, nationalism/fascism, etc.)
Whenever you have a movement of people who are aiming to elevate the collective and thus the government over the individual you will have this outcome, when did it not happen? If there is a collectivist system today that is still not fully authoritarian/dictatorial, it is on the way there.
Fucking piece of shit government is constantly getting involved where it absolutely does not belong for any god-damn reason. The car manufacturers don't want to get sued, whether they decide to use noise or some other method of projecting the presence of the vehicle is up to them. Government getting into these thing is how you get Pi=3.2.
The part where you think that other politicians do not.
- first of all I did not say that and secondly you have to make sure you put a caveat in that that you do not in fact know that the private opinion of every single politician is not the same as the public one.
But back to the point at hand, Clinton's public and private positions are now out in the open, Trump's public position is in direct contradiction to Obama's and Clinton's. So my comment stands: it is *embarrassing* for Obama, since basically Trump's public position is to kill TPP and if Obama enacts TPP today then the public idea is that Trump would kill it, and by the way this would take Trump to the left of Obama apparently, so it is *embarrassing*.
AFAIC Obama is an embarrassment on everything, but that's a different story.
Are you joking, insane, stupid or pretending?
Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?
As to Trump, whether he would back TPP or not, his public position made it *embarrassing* for Obama, because if Trump immediately undid what Obama enacted, it would be such an embarrassment, wouldn't it?
Obama has no legacy left, he is embarrassed, he is so fucking embarrassed.
But, but, where is the beef?
Ridiculous.
Yeah, well, so was the thought of Trump as POTUS.
With you 100%. I must say though, I was just talking about secession here with Bruce Perens, he is under impression that people are not interested in individual freedom because they want to live on handouts. I think everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else, freedom of association is extremely important for private property rights and AFAIC the top rights are: the right to life (government must not deprive you of your life), freedom (government must not deprive you of freedom), property (government must not deprive you of property), everything else is secondary but it follows. The right to free speech means government must not deny you the right to speak freely but this right only is relevant when you have to speak to protect yourself, protect yourself from government trying to destroy your other rights.
The same concept applies to the right of association, government must not punish you for associating or not associating with other people.
This is what rights are: protections against government oppression, protections of your individual self, your self-determination. Apparently people are under impression that having a subsidy trumps (can anybody use this word now without invoking the images of this election?) other freedoms. I don't think so, I think people want to be free, they want to determine their own fate and future, they will choose freedom over subsidy.
Of-course some will ensure subsidy over freedom, but this implies that somebody else has to be made 'not free', somebody else's freedom must be taken away to provide that subsidy and this must not stand.
My point is that everybody should be totally within their right to secede from everybody else and to associate freely with anybody else. The underlying principle here is that nobody should be ruling anybody else, we are all individuals and we must not be ruled.
As to Silicon Valley, many there are clearly interested in ruling others and now they are terrified to be ruled all of a sudden. I have no sympathy but I think this is a good lesson.
In abstract anything is possible, my position does not change one bit. It is an immoral state of affairs that some should be subsidised by others through government oppression.
It is immoral on a number of fronts. It is immoral because it uses force to steal and redistribute.
It is immoral because it creates dependency that wouldn't exist if there was no subsidy, so it creates servitude, it creates expectation of the subsidy, it creates reliance that cannot be sustained (and it shouldn't).
So what happens when this system breaks anyway, because *it will break*? What will the people who used to get the subsidies do, how will they survive when they have not developed the tools for their personal survival because of this subsidy and reliance and dependence?
Turning people into eternal children is immoral and horrible for those very people. To argue otherwise is to say that some never deserve to grow up and never deserve their right to self determination, their independence.
Just to make it crystal clear, I believe all subsidies provided through the government oppression of taxing some to redistribute to others are evil and immoral and shouldn't exist. If a State gets subsidies it means it generates net loss through its own economic activity, this is not a normal or a natural state of affairs, this is very much likely a result of government intervention in the first place otherwise it wouldn't exist.
People balance their books on their own when there is nobody there to 'help' them and with everything that governments do, the type of 'help' that people get only prevents them from balancing their own books. The government breaks their legs and gives them crutches. Why should anybody with any self respect be willing to live that way, why should that be the status quo?
I think it should not be.
I don't believe we've met, but you are immediately assuming that I am after your money for some reason. AFAIC it doesn't matter what the State is and what it gets vs what it pays, it is a moral imperative not to steal from others with the barrel of a government gun (or any gun for that matter).
I think States should secede based on the principle of non aggression and self determination. California should secede, so should NY, Texas, eventually no State would be able to receive any goods from others and there would be no point in that fake union in the first place.