The judgment leaves behind a divided community fighting battles on internet message boards and in meetings. One side believes the creation of the new city is elitist, racist and protectionist, and that it will exacerbate existing segregation by hogging tax dollars. Their opponents believe they are exercising their absolute democratic and constitutional rights as Americans, voting to stop their money bleeding out into a needy parish whose residents don’t earn enough money to look after themselves.
It’s not always that we can see that both sides are – potentially at least – entirely correct.
I’ve been following this story – with the usual caveat that there is no completely objective version.
Having said that, and I appreciate the paywalled article might also cover this, my understanding is that the initial cause was the poor standard of Baton Rouge schools. As the state legislature showed no interest in addressing this a split became more likely. Therefore this sentence is a somewhat selective interpretation of events:-
voting to stop their money bleeding out into a needy parish whose residents don’t earn enough money to look after themselves.
Incidentally the unpaywalled part manages to include the dog whistle terms “empire”, “Confederacy” and “flags” in the first short paragraph so maybe the writer has a slight agenda?
elitist, racist and protectionist
By all means call it that if you like but you can’t put taxpayers into a crush to extract their money.
Isn’t it a matter of perspective?
Are members of society tax serfs, who’s only reason to exist is to serve the state.
Or is is it that the state is there to serve the people, who have certain, inalienable rights, given to them by God? That means the right to associate with whom you please, and the the right to live your life under whichever means of government best suits your purposes.
It’s a microcosm of the wider battle being fought around the world and in America, collectivism vs. individualism.
This reminds me of Oz.
Our noble High Court many years ago concluded that different states having different levels of VAT were breaching the Constitution by hampering inter-state trade. So naturally the Commonwealth introduced its own VAT to cover the loss of all this loot to the states.
Surprise, surprise!! The more environmentally pure states are always screaming for more of the money extorted from those ghastly places where intellectual enlightenment is slow in coming. The present fuss is the push to eliminate the sale of live sheep from Western Australia to the Middle East. The Muzzies naturally prefer to kill them properly themselves rather than have this done by the polluted Christian savages of Oz.
No doubt the economy of WA will eventually be reduced to Victorian levels.
Ask an Albertan what they think of ‘equalization payments’……
Slightly off-topic, but I remember an exact-opposite example occurring to the town I lived in at the time…
The “Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield”, which was “its own master” and had its own town council etc. was, in 1974, merged into the City of Birmingham and we lost our town council – which appeared to run a pretty tight ship as the council offices were tiny (by local authority standards), with a staff to match…
The “rates” doubled virtually overnight. “Sutton Park” (a beautiful and well-maintained 2000ish acres of woodland, heathland, lakes etc etc) went from charging a small entry-fee for vehicles (free to residents) – which provided a decent steady income to the town – to free for everyone. The place really went downhill… Urban maintenance was drastically reduced, the park really suffered as the ground staff was reduced and the place started accumulating litter etc. Some access was blocked completely too. Residents certainly didn’t see any benefit whatsoever for their massively-increased local taxation – really only ever saw negatives as Birmingham wasn’t the most efficient of authorities even then- and is, as we all know, now bankrupt.
I can understand why the residents of a heavily-taxed “posh” area get more-than-a-bit pissed-off seeing what happens to their money.
The well-heeled, largely white residents of St George in Louisiana say they have a democratic right to keep their tax dollars to themselves
How dare white people think they can keep the things they’ve built.
That’s racist against people whose greatest civilisational achievement is the mud hut or the stick.
Or is is it that the state is there to serve the people, who have certain, inalienable rights, given to them by God? That means the right to associate with whom you please, and the the right to live your life under whichever means of government best suits your purposes
This is exactly the nonsense palmed off on us by C18th “intellectuals”. There are no such thing as rights, God given or not. Only obligations.
Sorry, that sort of thinking directly leads to collectivisation. As here. One person’s right always has to be some other person’s obligation. Those who shout loudest about their “rights” put the obligation to fulfil them on those who shout the least. Every piece of “rights” legislation puts an obligation on those don’t benefit from it. “Rights”is why the country is in the shit it is.
BiS – There are no such thing as rights, God given or not. Only obligations.
This is an interesting point.
Afaict, obligations are fair and reciprocal, or they’re not obligations, they are the terms of your enslavement.
One person’s right always has to be some other person’s obligation.
The right to say what you think, or the right to own property, or the right to own weapons for self defence, or the right to a fair trial?
Not all rights impose a cost on others.
– This is exactly the nonsense palmed off on us by C18th “intellectuals”. There are no such thing as rights, God given or not. Only obligations.
The C18th “intellectuals” who talked about “inalienable rights” (American revolutionaries) were concerned about what progressives call “negative rights” – which are basically restrictions upon the government from placing restrictions and impositions upon citizens. These “negative rights” don’t give anything to anyone; the only direct obligation is upon members of the government to honour their oaths of allegiance to the constitution that includes those rights. There is, of course, an indirect obligation upon the citizens (self interest) to ensure those oaths are properly observed . . .
The types of “rights” that impose obligations upon others are the progressives’ “positive rights” (they’re good at marketing). Things like minimum wage, universal basic income, free schooling, affordable housing and healthcare. Those all put obligations on others to provide the resources.
Even the most libertarian American Revolutionaries accepted the obligation of tax, but they regarded the “common welfare” as things like national defense, courts and other necessary functions of government. As we have found out, there’s a lot of wiggle in “necessary”.
“is it that the state is there to serve the people, who have certain, inalienable rights, given to them by God?”
Well, of course not. What the Founding Fathers wanted to do was preserve their customary rights as British subjects but were, obvs, embarrassed by the idea of saying so. Hence the twaddle.
“the poor standard of Baton Rouge schools”
Anyone who visits American blogs will discover that this is code for “schools full of blicks”. But then the correlation probably does correspond to a cause. I’ve seen it suggested that the only large exception is US armed forces schools where the black boys come from superior families (i.e. their father passed the entry tests for the forces) and have a Daddy at home to try and keep them on the straight and narrow.
Dearieme
That has a lot to do with it. A close relative has taught in US public and private schools. She will never return to the former despite the far superior pay and benefits after a recent encounter with a violent (towards fellow pupils and staff members) 9 year old whose father was a grand master at playing the race card and ruining careers. She thought she could turn the kid around, she was mistaken.
Unpaywalled
https://archive.ph/QGMlg
The campaign for self-determination began in 2012 with a teacher named Norman Browning — “the godfather of St George” — who wanted to improve the public school system, where grades were low and violence high.
Parents wanted to create their own school district, ringfencing their children (children are allowed only to attend a public school in their school district) and property taxes. To do that they needed to create their own city.
As others have said “grades were low and violence high” is more code for the typical damage fatherless African-American children’s cause in American inner city schools.
It’s something I’ve pondered for a while, where does this culture of (cough) impregnate and flee come from?
The right to say what you think, or the right to own property, or the right to own weapons for self defence, or the right to a fair trial?
No, they’re still obligations are owed to others. Particularly the weapons of defence. If one wants to benefit from such there should be an obligation that others can. What you have in the UK currently is a few have the right denied to the rest. You think your politicians go around undefended?
Brilliant summary of the state of Sutton Coldfield then and now by the Baron of Jackfield.
The parking charges at Sutton Park, home of the national relays, are back this year after a multi decade absence, and rightly so.
@BlokeInBrum – “Or is is it that the state is there to serve the people, who have certain, inalienable rights, given to them by God?”
Quite obviously not, since God is a fictional character. And, of course, there is no evidence of any inalienable rights – any rights are quite eaily taken away from people unless they are defended. If there really were inalienable rights there would be no need for constitutions to attempt to guard them. Just as no constitution defends the right of people to be attracted to the Earth by gravity. We don’t have people at risk of floating off into space appealing to courts to defend their right to gravity.
The proposed city of St. George has a website at http://stgeorgelouisiana.com with their proposed map of the area. It does look suspiciously shaped with even a hole in it. And to the extent that they complain that their taxes are not all spent on themselves, they do not understand that that is one of the intended properties of tax.
The “hole” needs some explaining. I can understand the city of St George deciding it can make do without the Walmart while the exclusion of the Chuck E Cheese is a no brainer for anyone with an interest in preserving law and order. However, with a majority white upper-income demographic, divesting itself from Top Golf appears counterproductive.
On the plus side there is considerable scope for future expansion eastwards through Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain and Borgne following which it will extend from the river to the sea.