‘Startup Nation’ Groups Say They’re Meeting Trump Officials to Push for Deregulated ‘Freedom Cities’
The architects of projects like Próspera are drafting legislation to create US cities that would be free from federal regulations.
‘Startup Nation’ Groups Say They’re Meeting Trump Officials to Push for Deregulated ‘Freedom Cities’
The architects of projects like Próspera are drafting legislation to create US cities that would be free from federal regulations.
‘Startup Nation’ Groups Say They’re Meeting Trump Officials to Push for Deregulated ‘Freedom Cities’
The architects of projects like Próspera are drafting legislation to create US cities that would be free from federal regulations.
Próspera cities are a libertarian's wet dream, don't you agree?
You keep assuming I am a libertarian. Interesting.
You made it easy when you said that you were so extreme that Jim Crow would be fine as long as it wasn't government mandated. Do you think I haven't been around dogmatic libertarians before? There are a lot of them in Montana and WNC.
Last edited by Vrede too on Sat Mar 08, 2025 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lament the murder, not the murdered.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
Próspera cities are a libertarian's wet dream, don't you agree?
You keep assuming I am a libertarian. Interesting.
You made it easy when you said that you were so extreme that Jim Crow would be fine as long as it wasn't government mandated. Do you think I haven't been around dogmatic libertarians before? There are a lot of them in Montana and WNC.
What? I never said that. I don’t even know who Jim Crow is. Try again.
You made it easy when you said that you were so extreme that Jim Crow would be fine as long as it wasn't government mandated. Do you think I haven't been around dogmatic libertarians before? There are a lot of them in Montana and WNC.
What? I never said that. I don’t even know who Jim Crow is. Try again.
Google much? (O Really beat me to it )
You most certainly did say that. You believe that businesses should be able to serve and hire whoever they want without government interference. That includes discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc - Jim Crow+++.
You dodged my question. Interesting. Aren't Próspera cities a perfect match with your ideology?
Lament the murder, not the murdered.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
You made it easy when you said that you were so extreme that Jim Crow would be fine as long as it wasn't government mandated. Do you think I haven't been around dogmatic libertarians before? There are a lot of them in Montana and WNC.
What? I never said that. I don’t even know who Jim Crow is. Try again.
Google much? (O Really beat me to it )
You most certainly did say that. You believe that businesses should be able to serve and hire whoever they want without government interference. That includes discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc - Jim Crow+++.
You dodged my question. Interesting. Aren't Próspera cities a perfect match with your ideology?
What? I never said that. I don’t even know who Jim Crow is. Try again.
Google much? (O Really beat me to it )
You most certainly did say that. You believe that businesses should be able to serve and hire whoever they want without government interference. That includes discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc - Jim Crow+++.
You dodged my question. Interesting. Aren't Próspera cities a perfect match with your ideology?
I’m not deflecting at all. I have no problem with private companies imposing DEI policies. Ask Cubbie. My stance has always been that purely private entities should have the freedom to set their own agendas. They should be able to hire and fire whomever they want. Be inclusive as they want, or be as discriminatory as they want. Your business, your choices.
I am completely against government-imposed DEI. Always will be.
And again, I think “diversity” is completely overrated.
What GoCubsGo says.
That's a clear 'Yes' in response to my question.
There it is, Jasmine and SoupySales support:
Jim Crow (private);
Whites-only lunch counters;
Blacks forced to the backs of private buses;
Whites-only private schools and housing;
Asian and even native Hawaiian free development, transportation, employment, wholesale and retail in Hawaii;
Women-free workplaces, etc.
Bigots and their extreme dogmatic allies like Jasmine and SoupySales are disgusting.
As I accurately described and you're playing silly games around, your ideology is uber-libertarian. 'Jim Crow (private)' is an accurate label and when I applied it you never denied it, just like you're dancing around not denying that you're an extreme libertarian. Grow up.
In fact, you doubled down on the next page with a very specific defense of Jim Crow:
If Mike McWhitey owns a diner and wants to serve only white peeps, that should be his right. Would his diner survive with that kind of discriminatory policy? I’m going to guess no. Let each private business owner make their own choices - free from government intrusion - and let him succeed or fail on his own merit.
That's an Rx for White supremacy.
Lament the murder, not the murdered.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
What? I never said that. I don’t even know who Jim Crow is. Try again.
Google much? (O Really beat me to it )
You most certainly did say that. You believe that businesses should be able to serve and hire whoever they want without government interference. That includes discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc - Jim Crow+++.
You dodged my question. Interesting. Aren't Próspera cities a perfect match with your ideology?
I’m not deflecting at all. I have no problem with private companies imposing DEI policies. Ask Cubbie. My stance has always been that purely private entities should have the freedom to set their own agendas. They should be able to hire and fire whomever they want. Be inclusive as they want, or be as discriminatory as they want. Your business, your choices.
I am completely against government-imposed DEI. Always will be.
And again, I think “diversity” is completely overrated.
What GoCubsGo says.
That's a clear 'Yes' in response to my question.
There it is, Jasmine and SoupySales support:
Jim Crow (private);
Whites-only lunch counters;
Blacks forced to the backs of private buses;
Whites-only private schools and housing;
Asian and even native Hawaiian free development, transportation, employment, wholesale and retail in Hawaii;
Women-free workplaces, etc.
Bigots and their extreme dogmatic allies like Jasmine and SoupySales are disgusting.
As I accurately described and you're playing silly games around, your ideology is uber-libertarian. 'Jim Crow (private)' is an accurate label and when I applied it you never denied it, just like you're dancing around not denying that you're an extreme libertarian. Grow up.
In fact, you doubled down on the next page with a very specific defense of Jim Crow:
If Mike McWhitey owns a diner and wants to serve only white peeps, that should be his right. Would his diner survive with that kind of discriminatory policy? I’m going to guess no. Let each private business owner make their own choices - free from government intrusion - and let him succeed or fail on his own merit.
That's an Rx for White supremacy.
As you can see, I never mentioned Jim Crow at all. You did. And after you did, did I respond to you at all? Nope.
Damn, I really like that cat....orders of magnitude better than that despicable Stretch that Useless dragged in her. When I see your cat, I think "man, this is the way to travel."
If Mike McWhitey owns a diner and wants to serve only white peeps, that should be his right. Would his diner survive with that kind of discriminatory policy? I’m going to guess no. Let each private business owner make their own choices - free from government intrusion - and let him succeed or fail on his own merit.
That's an Rx for White supremacy.
As you can see, I never mentioned Jim Crow at all. You did. And after you did, did I respond to you at all? Nope.
A rotting rose by any other name is still a rotting rose. Again, grow up. Your utter ignorance of a decades-long and critical period in relatively recent American history is your problem, not mine. Regardless, child, you would be fine with the vilest form of retail discrimination because of your uber-libertarian views, which you also cower from admitting for post after post. What label we put on your hateful endorsement of White supremacy misses the point. You're being a wimp, not clever at all.
Lament the murder, not the murdered.
1312. ETTD. 86 47.
I don't think allowing the market to be the ultimate arbitrer in all things is prudent or good. There are reasons anti discrimination laws are a thing. Many people had to suffer for them to become law. We've all got the benefit of living in a time where the suffering of those that experienced such things firsthand are in the distant past. A lot of us are likely part of the "in group" of the majority who wouldn't have experienced such things anyway.
I'm reminded of a book I read a while back called Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin. The author explained that black folks had to be sure to carefully plan routes when traveling, even within their own cities. For many, even simply finding a bathroom or drinking fountain or a place to eat or rest was an immense struggle due to segregation and discriminatory practices. Not to mention job prospects and being paid significantly less than white counterparts, or even being completely excluded from certain professions altogether. All of this was lawfully fine.
Don't discount how all of those humiliating things add up. Nothing operates on a vacuum, especially an ideological vacuum like the "free market solving all issues". The psychological toll taken on a community where open discrimination is allowed is another factor that needs to be considered.
Do you really want to live in a world where it's lawfully ok to discriminate?
I don't think allowing the market to be the ultimate arbitrer in all things is prudent or good. There are reasons anti discrimination laws are a thing. Many people had to suffer for them to become law. We've all got the benefit of living in a time where the suffering of those that experienced such things firsthand are in the distant past. A lot of us are likely part of the "in group" of the majority who wouldn't have experienced such things anyway.
I'm reminded of a book I read a while back called Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin. The author explained that black folks had to be sure to carefully plan routes when traveling, even within their own cities. For many, even simply finding a bathroom or drinking fountain or a place to eat or rest was an immense struggle due to segregation and discriminatory practices. Not to mention job prospects and being paid significantly less than white counterparts, or even being completely excluded from certain professions altogether. All of this was lawfully fine.
Don't discount how all of those humiliating things add up. Nothing operates on a vacuum, especially an ideological vacuum like the "free market solving all issues". The psychological toll taken on a community where open discrimination is allowed is another factor that needs to be considered.
Do you really want to live in a world where it's lawfully ok to discriminate?
When I was in high school (early 70's) we had a class assignment to read that book.
And I can remember going with my dad to a barber shop here in town as a kid; there was a sign in the window saying "white patrons only" and I remember asking my dad what a patron was.
And, lastly, our senior prom was cancelled because of racial tensions. Prior to attending high school I had never gone to school with Black kids but my 6th grade teacher was a Black woman.
A fundamental responsibility of government (by left or right definition) is to protect its citizens - ALL of them. That means protecting them against threats external and also internal (like why it's illegal to hit your neighbor with a rake, Useless). Making it illegal for an entity otherwise open to the public to refuse service based on the customer's race is the same kind of protection. Can't believe that's still an issue in 2025, but there's been major regression in education and cultural norms in the last couple of decades.
A fundamental responsibility of government (by left or right definition) is to protect its citizens - ALL of them. That means protecting them against threats external and also internal (like why it's illegal to hit your neighbor with a rake, Useless). Making it illegal for an entity otherwise open to the public to refuse service based on the customer's race is the same kind of protection. Can't believe that's still an issue in 2025, but there's been major regression in education and cultural norms in the last couple of decades.
Yeah it's really bizarre. And there's ample historical evidence that such regressions have happened with dire results.
A bunch of interviews with people who lived through Germany ~1933-1945. Interesting because if gives insight into the policies targeting Jewish folks implemented by the Nazis. A lot of people believed it was unfathomable that a country like Germany could ever allow such things to pass. A lot of German Jews thought themselves Germans first, Jews second (if at all. Many weren't particularly religious). Some people didn't even realize they were Jews before getting caught up in the ever tightening noose.
The point I'm trying to make is if you read enough to understand the general zeitgeist of the time period prior to the ascent of the Nazis up to their more extreme policies, you'll notice there is a slow but steady shift towards the things that we usually associate with Nazi Germany. It didn't just come to pass instantaneously. It came about slow and steadily.
This is why it's important to not allow things to regress and why it's important to have protections against things like open discrimination against immutable characteristics.
)
Sigh.
RIP
