Local Level Allegiance, Economic and Law and Corporate National and International Profits

An interesting thing today that relates to my penultimate blog entry looking at where are allegiances are and observing that perhaps an economic model where are closest to home, geographically or ideologically are the strongest and most important.  In that case it would be city over state, state over national government.  Localized economic allegiance intended to serve state and federal government is the same manner that military allegiance to ones own brothers in arms in warfare (we fight for one another) serves our national welfare (or not when it serves national special interest?)

This is the report that caught my interest:

States saying 'no' to cities seeking to regulate businesses 

It is about the fundamental rights of levels of government.  

Governance is a matter determined by we the people.   Local allegiance to local interests would restructure governance and its associated governmental powers structure.  

Would local allegiance with less higher level restriction power result in segmentation and associated conflict among city to city, city to state, state to nation?  Or, is it the basis for a model that would lead to benefits of local citizenship vs higher level economic control of affairs?

 "We need to give companies and businesses some predictability and some consistency in their operations so that they can grow," said Shaul, a freshman Republican representative from the St. Louis suburb of Imperial, whose anti-bag ban measure is pending before Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon."

Is this TPP corporate profit policy and treaty law at the natioanl/international level in microcosm?  If a city passes law that would make it liable for loss of profits to an external corporate entity could the city be sued for loss of current or future profits?  Of course that situation would never exist if higher level governmental law of the land prohibited or restricted legal power of a city to pass laws that would have that result in the first place.

Looking closer at level of government control of economics casts some interesting light on ALEC.  On the one hand it seeks to limit national economic control that would adversely affect business profit.  Recent report on the aims of ALEC reveal that it applies the same approach to state and local government.  The conclusion is that special economic interests related to profit making and taking aggregate to representational entities Like ALEC that seek to control anything and everything at any level of governmental or external agency level that is adverse to pure profit.

 If that is ALEC ideology then it is the same that is driving TPP that makes profit the supreme parent law of the world as well as its all of its lower level governmental segmentation's inheriting the attributes of the parent law of global corporate dominance that extends that dominance down to the local level.

ALEC Exposed 

Plastic bags would seem to be inconsequential at the local level.  In the bigger picture if local law on plastic bags and its relationship to economic profit making interests beyond the local level sets the precedent then where does local level power to legislate these types economic/profit matters stop?

 To answer my own question:  Local level interest to regulate local rules is not dominated by external economic profit interests when the local rules are aimed at objectives that exceed the general welfare domain beyond the profit interest level.  

Social welfare, environmental welfare at the local level trumps the power domain interests of corporate profit at any level?

 Maybe a good model!

That is why if legislation fails to hamstring local government law and rules plan B would be to establish law that would allow corporations to sue cities (states too) for actual or future loss of profits.  Plan A for corporation is not to have to go to plan B by simply establishing law at the state  making it illegal for cities to pass any law at the local level adverse to actual current or future corporate profits.  It is simple risk reduction action on the part of corporate welfare.

Hey, its just business not personal.

This is the concluding paragraph from the link:

 "City councils and mayors "don't have some kind of organic legal authority to do whatever they want," said Missouri state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, a Republican attorney general candidate from Columbia. "It would be absolute bedlam what some of these communities would do to their citizens if they had that ability."

Yeahbut! Take a different point of view: Look at what communities would do for their citizens if they had that ability!  

Who is your daddy?  Somebody looking out for you and your majority general interest at the local level that as a citizen has a greater degree of influence on or somebody at the state and national level that has a special interest economic profit making/taking client?