The Unethical, Un-American, State Travel Bans

Recently various states have decided to punish their fellow members of the United States of America for daring to adopt laws of which they do not approve. The method: bans on government employees traveling to those states on business and the state dime, with the hope that the state’s lead will discourage private travel as well. Why are they doing this? Oh, many reasons, I suppose, all of them insufficient to justify the conduct, which is unethical.

Some of the state legislators who pass these bans, and the governors who sign them, want to place economic sanctions on the other states, even if the effects are limited. After all, they can’t stop the citizens of the states from traveling, only government employees. But pressure is pressure, and the limited measures are an attempt to meddle in the democracy of those other bad states. Another reason is virtue-signalling, as a state seeks to show that it supports a group that is politically strong in that region against another state’s policies that displease it. A third reason is the related motive of grandstanding. Finally, a state might use a travel ban to strike back at another state that is banning state travel there. An eye for an eye, a voucher for a voucher.

Yes, this will end well.

I wish I didn’t have to say this, because I know everyone thinks I pick on liberals, progressives and Democrats, but it’s the Democratic majority states that are using this weapon, especially…well, can you guess? Oh, come on, guess. Yes, the major offender is California. Others are New York, Minnesota, and Washington state.

“Our country has made great strides in dismantling prejudicial laws that have deprived too many of our fellow Americans of their precious rights,” says the public statement of California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra of California, who has been instrumental in getting the Golden State to limit trips to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. You know, those conservative bad places, where people with sub-normal IQ’s cling to their guns and Bibles. His quote is a classic of arrogant, doctrinaire, narrow-minded, elitist self-righteousness.

Some people feel, in some states, that they should have a right to go to a public bathroom without being watched by fellow citizens with pee-pees. California voters don’t respect those rights or care about them? Fine. After all, they are the ones who live there. But by what divine right—wait, I’m sorry, I forgot that California doesn’t respect religious rights for anyone but Muslims, or something—by what right do the denizens of California derive the delusion that they should punish other states and their businesses and citizens who don’t share their peculiar views of the world? Simple: they know best, that’s all, and they feel it is their mission to force everyone else to think, act and believe as they do. Democracy isn’t good enough.

Some of the evil, troglodyte-infested, banned states aren’t taking this lying down. The Tennessee General Assembly  passed a resolution condemning the imposition of “unfounded moral judgment,” while pointing to California’s “exorbitant taxes, spiraling budget deficits, runaway social welfare programs and rampant illegal immigration.” Oh, no, those are all justifiable. California knows best, don’;t these hick understand that? It’s Tennessee that is backwards.

Mark Twain said that “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.” The anti-democratic legislators in California, New York, Minnesota, and Washington disagree. They think they what they see as prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness will be smothered by a lack of travel. They don’t want to know how anyone outside their little own cultural bubble thinks or why. They just want them to think the way they do—the right way.

“Is this more symbolic than actually an economic driving force? Most certainly so,”  Evan Low, a California assemblyman who sponsored a measure that restricted travel,restrictions, told the New York Times. “But it allows the conversation to continue to occur to say, ‘Wow, these states really don’t value the basic, fundamental rights of all of its citizens?”’

No, what these measures do is allow a conversation to start in which people say, “Wow, Democrats really don’t believe in democracy at all, do they?”

Not much, no.

Every $1 million in sales of travel goods and services supports nine nonexportable American jobs. A state like Texas, which hosts 10% of the nation’s trade shows and has a large number of popular convention destinations could easily lose many millions of dollars in business as a result of these out-of-state attacks. It will be hotel front-desk clerks, waiters, rental car agents and salespeople–and their families, of course—who will suffer, not the legislators. Like all boycotts, the travel bans are intrinsically unethical and unfair.  Ah, never mind, say Californians, Minnesotans, New Yorkers and Washingtonians—nobody good would live in these unenlightened pits of deplorables anyway. Screw -em.

To say that this practice is un-American, that it is dangerous, and that it strains and frays the bonds of our nation and political culture is an understatement. The National Conference of State Legislatures told the Times that it knew of no similar, longstanding efforts by states to express its  disagreements with other states by using economic boycotts. That’s hardly surprising, since the practice is indefensible, and irresponsible for anyone who respects pluralism, democratic principles while supporting the concept of America being one nation. indivisible.

No, this will not end well.

For a nation and a culture, it is suicidal.

59 thoughts on “The Unethical, Un-American, State Travel Bans

  1. It is almost as if people do not understand what federalism us. Even worse, they understand, but they don’t want diversity or lack of conformity. From speed limits to MLK holidays (truth to told, I am partial to Malcolm X) to alcohol age limits, or even health insurance (or prohibition), there are some who have a problem that someone, somewhere might be free.

    • Abraham Lincoln, for all he did for this country, left us one unfortunate legacy – secession is off the table forever. It’s becoming clearer that as a country, we the people want a divorce. We do not want to live in the same house as one another. While Texas will occasionally whisper about going their own way, the threat has no real weight. Such a thing wouldn’t even get to the referendum stage like Quebec has. We’re stuck together, till death (whatever that might mean in a national sense) do us part.

      And despite all this being forced to live under the same roof hostility, voters insist, in small and incremental ways, AGAINST federalism. They want a one-size-fits-all, top-down, federal government solution to any issue. To breathe the phrase “state’s rights” is the equivalent of flying the Confederate flag.

      • Anything, including dissolution, can be done by constitutional amendment. Also, if a “divorce” was negotiated (signed off by both Congress and the states), I think that the Supreme Court would call it a “political decision” that they wouldn’t touch.

        The biggest impediment to this is the national debt. The ideas of dividing $20 trillion is pretty daunting.

  2. You know, the last time a set of intransigent and irreconcilable Democrat states banded together to prohibit economic ties and ban state travel with Republican states, the Republican states responded by flooding the Democrat states with thousands of government employees at tax payer expense.

  3. “You can go to hell! I’m going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett) I’ve about had it with the progressive weenies that now have a supermajority in the state legislature. With a 63 cent gas tax on the horizon due to the legislatures sneaky tactics the residents of the once great state of California are being robbed and many of don’t even know it.

    • You know it is funny you mention this. The other day I was at a Safeway gas station, and I noticed I had a $.70 per gallon discount. IT was very nice to be filling up at only $1.79 per gallon, but while I was filling up I thought to myself… wow, $.70, that almost covers the taxes on this gasoline.

      Sad state of affairs.

      • You pay too much for gas, Rusty. We have been paying $1.97 per gallon all summer, with very minor variations. That discount would make that $1.27 here.

        Then again, we have fewer taxes and supply gas to most of the nation down here in deplorable Texas.

  4. And, California, the next time you start having those “rolling brown-outs” you don’t expect to get free electricity from the Texas grid. Ain’t gonna happen.

    • Yeah, that ship has sailed.

      Funny how the progressive states never seem to implement the green energy measures they espouse to the rest of us. Texas leads the nation in solar and wind power, and we do it at a profit

      • Hey, Vermont is almost entirely renewable energy. What they usually don’t tell you as follow up is that it’s all hydro power.

  5. I’ll say it again. Can we just get the civil war the Left is stewing for sooner than later so my kids can somewhat enjoy young adulthood in a relatively peaceful post-war period?

    • This does raise the question of what, short of war or dissolution, is going to stop the madness? The only thing I can imagine is a mass movement – twenty-five million, fifty million people – going to the streets and professing for the rule of law and equality before the law.

  6. The vast majority of state taxpayer-funded visits to other states are unnecessary frolics. I’d love to see a state ban all such trips on fiscal restraint grounds.

  7. I agree that these bans are unethical and only promote division.

    I take issue with this portion:

    Some people feel, in some states, that they should have a right to go to a public bathroom without being watched by fellow citizens with pee-pees. California voters don’t respect those rights or care about them?

    I think I have the right to go to a public bathroom without being watched by anyone. I know of no proposed policy in California that would interfere with this right, because there isn’t any; watching someone in the bathroom without someone’s consent would be harassment, regardless of that person’s genitals.

    Really, Jack–that quote is something a conservative hack like Rod Dreher would write. It is beneath you. No one is arguing that anyone should be watching anyone in the bathroom. Your quote implies that trans people do that, which is a baseless and harmful smear, and is the very definition of transphobic.

    • WHAT? People watch each other in bathrooms. You have up to a dozen people, most acting hard NOT to appear to be looking around, but nothing stops someone who is peeking, listening, staring, or surreptitiously watching from doing so—or wondering if someone is.

      Your protest is silly, Chris. I’ve had to use unisex bathrooms, and they are 100% moe stressful than single sex versions. They aren’t for you? Woopie doo. Take a bow.

      • Btw, “phobic” is the progressives favorite term to use in smearing somebody’s opinion that they disagree with. (ala “homophobic”, “transphobic”, etc.)

        • What an original observation.

          It isn’t a “smear,” it’s a description of real attitudes. The fear of trans people in public restrooms is irrational. Ergo, “transphobic.”

          Now, the best argument in opposition to trans people using public bathrooms is “We have to keep them out because some cis men are perverts and will take advantage of trans-inclusive bathrooms.” Seriously. That’s the best argument. In which case, perhaps “transphobic” is unfair, but you’re still saying the concerns of trans people don’t matter as much as the concerns of cis people, even though trans people are much more at risk of assault in a public restroom than a cis person is.

          • you’re still saying the concerns of trans people don’t matter as much as the concerns of cis people…

            This is EXACTLY what I am saying. Give me the percentage of ‘cis’ people versus ‘trans’ people, Chris. You stance does MUCH greater damage to society than mine, despite it being ‘unfair.’ If a trans person is attacked once every 1000 bathroom trips (exaggerated to the extreme) and a ‘cis’ person is attacked once every 100,000 bathroom trips, how many of each are attacked? The number of assaults is still over three times as many for the ‘cis’ population. More assaults = ‘worse for society’

            even though trans people are much more at risk of assault in a public restroom than a cis person is.

            Sources, Chris? I would love to see statistics on bathroom assaults for trans versus ‘cis’ people. How do you define a risk? Some risks are so small as to be overlooked. Are trans people going to be attacked 1 bathroom trip in 10,000? 1000? 100? Are ‘cis people attacked 1 trip in 1,000,000?

            • Progressives taint science for social engineering, then mock those that will not swallow the bullshit science. Arrogant hubris, and quite annoying.

              97% of climate scientists agree on man made global warming, huh, Chris? Thoroughly debunked but still used by progressives.

              Scientist never have agendas? Who pays the grants never selects the studies they want, thus getting the desired results? Scientists would never conspire to fake their data, would they?

              Except they do, and have been caught doing so.

      • WHAT? People watch each other in bathrooms. You have up to a dozen people, most acting hard NOT to appear to be looking around, but nothing stops someone who is peeking, listening, staring, or surreptitiously watching from doing so—or wondering if someone is.

        …Ok? But if I notice a transman watching me in the men’s bathroom, it really isn’t going to be any different for me from noticing a cis man watching me in the men’s bathroom.

        Is it different for women? Maybe, though all the arguments I hear come down to “Men are more of a threat to society than women are.” But…transwomen aren’t men, they’re women, so I’m still not getting it. The logic seems to be “Cis men will take advantage of trans-inclusive policies in order to perv on cis women.” So we’re punishing transwomen for what cis men do. OK, this is obviously unfair, but perhaps these people believe that the threat outweighs the need for fairness? In which case I think we need a lot more evidence that cis men doing this is a threat worth hurting trans people for than we have now.

        • transwomen aren’t men, they’re women, so I’m still not getting it.

          Do ‘transwomen’ have a penis? Use the boys room. This boils down to setters versus pointers, Chris. Saying anything different denies physical reality.

          In which case I think we need a lot more evidence that cis men doing this is a threat worth hurting trans people for than we have now.

          I gave you many examples in another post, saying just exactly this. Certain men will be predators.

          people believe that the threat outweighs the need for fairness


          • I guarantee you there are transmen without penises that still look like men to most passive observers. I also guarantee you that there are transwomen with penises that still look like women to most passive observers. Whether or not they have a penis is a completely ridiculous thing to base that rule on, and if certain transpeople follow this rule, it will only create more confusion. You’re saying a transman with a full beard should use the ladies’ room if they don’t have a penis. And you think this is going to satisfy anyone, least of all the people freaking out the loudest about transwomen in women’s bathrooms?

            The best thing would be to allow trans people to use the bathroom that they feel safest in…meaning that, in most cases, they’d use the bathroom of the gender they most resemble upon first glance, because they don’t want to be questioned, harassed, or assaulted. You know, like they did before conservatives started making this an issue with ridiculous anti-trans bathroom laws.

    • The tiny (0.003%) minority of Trans people are not the offenders, as you well know, Chris. Again, I have proven this to you in a previous post, by giving you the news articles of males taking advantage of such laws to prey on females.

      But I will not go back and show you this: it takes too much time, and you will not remember it the next time you spout off.

      • I remember it just fine, slick. Most of the examples you gave me were from before the “trans people in bathrooms” thing became an issue. I don’t doubt that some will take advantage of the law. But I don’t think that justifies pre-criminalizing trans people who just want to use the bathroom where they feel least in danger of being noticed and assaulted.

      • And besides, there is nothing wrong with sex segregation of public restrooms.

        these people should just suck it up and deal with it.

        the reasonable man adapts to fit society.

        The unreasonable man tries to adapt society to fit him.

      • In other words, there is nothing immoral nor unethical with this policy.

        and yet, some people are crying is as sex segregation of restrooms was some gross injustice. Funny, I do not recall writings dating from the Reformation, the Enlightenment, or the Revolution decrying the evil of sex segregated restrooms.

        And I fail to see how segregating restrooms on the basis of gender identity makes more sense than segregating restrooms between Eagles fans and Steelers fans, or between Star Wars cosplayers and Halo cosplayers.

    • I am going to go with modesty. Traditional values, traditional American values (whatever) preclude this sort of thing, at least historically. The idea that some 40 year old neckbeard who decides to identify as a female today can then just go into the women’s bathroom with an 8yo, I don’t think has been thought out fully yet.

      Now, all that aside, I was raised in a household that had a unisex bathroom, and I really don’t mind them when I come across them in daily life. I have seen women use the men’s room on many occasions, at concerts, ballgames etc… the lines for the women’s room can be quite long. This sort of thing has never bothered me.

      Just remember, if you allow her [embed] [/embed] to go into the men’s room, you have to let him [embed][/embed] go into the women’s room.

      • False analogy, Rusty. You implicitly trust those in your home, and have a way to remediate transgressions. This is not true in public restrooms, without laws that allow that.

        Which, for better or worse, the Texas Senate has passed just yesterday. We will see if it actually gets done.

      • Rusty, I am probably being a bit dense here but I do not understand what you mean by having a unisex bathroom at home. In my home the bathroom
        was unisex in that we didn’t have separate male and female rooms but only one family member would be using it at a time (and in one house there were 9 family members and one bathroom). I understand that some families are more open to sharing but sharing within the family is much different than in public. The staff bathrooms where I work are single occupancy, equipped with one toilet, sink and in some cases shower and are used by whichever gender needs to use them. Would they be considered unisex bathrooms?

        I was stationed in Japan many years ago and went to nightclubs in Shinjuku,Tokyo. Most of the clubs had true unisex bathrooms. There would be a row of urinals and several stalls. It was quite an eyeopener for me the first time I used one not realizing the situation and glanced up to see a very attractive young woman walking behind me to get to the stalls. Of course, Japanese culture is much different than American. At the Kentucky Derby infield it was common to see women using the men’s room for the reason you mention and nobody seemed to make an issue of it.

        Separate restrooms for women in America only came about in the late 1800s when women starting entering the workforce and it was felt that their delicate sensibilities needed to be protected. Most restrooms were multi-occupant (same gender) simply because it was much more economical to construct a given number of toilets that way. There were also a lot of building codes written that dictated how bathroom facilities had to be constructed.

        I believe that the bathroom debate is ultimately going to be resolved by just increasing the number of single occupancy facilities wherever it is feasible to do so and not constructing anymore of the current style multi occupancy. I read somewhere that Trans activists objected that having a separate single occupancy bathroom for trans people stigmatized them. We really don’t have to put a sign on the door “Trans Only.” Just leave it as another bathroom open to whoever wants a little extra privacy to do their business and catch up on their texting.

        Just remember, no matter which bathroom you use, wash your hands.

  8. “It will be hotel front-desk clerks, waiters, rental car agents and salespeople–and their families, of course—who will suffer, not the legislators.”

    And who is in these jobs? Among the boycotted states: Mississippi has the highest percentage of black citizens of any state in the country. Alabama is seventh, North Carolina eighth, Tennessee eleventh. South Dakota is third or fourth in tribal percentages. Texas is second or third in Latino percentages.

  9. On the principle of avoiding throwing good money after bad, perhaps the more fiscally solvent states will ban their state employees from spending state funds on business trips to those states (and cities) that either are not fiscally solvent, or that show, through their manners of taxation and expenditure, a lack of fiscal responsibility. On with the war! They want it, so let’s give it to them! Let’s become the Divided States of Boycotts.

  10. There are still a few folks throwing around the idea of creating a separate nation of Pacifica, to consist of California, Washington, Oregon, and any part of Nevada that wants to come along, free to pursue progressive policies without conservative knuckle draggers holding them back. I’d be all for it, frankly, though I respond to their suggestion that we in the northeast break away and call ourselves Atlantis with a sneer, because NJ, upstate NY, and probably NH and parts of MA (which elects the occasional GOP governor) would just laugh.

    • Texas is in favor of letting both coast go their own way… and we will not only fix immigration on the southern border, but from the two new nations as well.

      Folks fleeing progressive failed states come here and start agitating for the sort of policies that ruined their states. Witness what happened to Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.

      We understand the refugees are the product of progressive education, but this makes it hard to keep our states solvent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.