5 ms·

> Would people opposed to a federal court ordering Apple to unlock an iPhone be okay with a state court doing it? I'm going to guess "no." If my state decides

by maratd 11y ago

> Would people opposed to a federal court ordering Apple to unlock an iPhone be okay with a state court doing it? I'm going to guess "no." If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. If the thing they are doing is sufficiently demented that enough people move, it will have a material effect on the state. This creates a dynamic that disincentivizes stupidity. The barrier is substantially less for the federal government. It usually takes quite a bit of abuse before people start moving to another country. That makes the state vs federal argument relevant. > As to your final point: while education or healthcare may arguably be outside the scope of the federal government's jurisdiction, national security and suppression of internal rebellion was one of the motivations for creating a strong federal government. Okay ... is the FBI/DEA/TSA/etc. there to suppress internal rebellion? I think you can make a pretty good argument that that's true, but they certainly don't advertise themselves that way.

penrod 11y ago
Hear, hear. The freedom to vote with your feet is one of the most important characteristics of the American experiment. Among all voting methods it is uniquely effective and accessible - you get a large roster of fifty 'candidates', and the cost of moving to another state is much lower than the cost of buying an election. When power is ceded from state to federal level, diminishing the diversity of candidate states, an important form of democracy is curtailed.
vacri 11y ago
> If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. Most people can't pick up and move their lives so casually. They're certainly not going to do so en masse if a state guv breaks into a criminal's phone. Hardly a disincentive.
- webXL 11y ago
  Ok, you can decide not to move to a state, because my haunch is that you'll do that once or twice in your lifetime.
  - vacri 11y ago
    If I move state, it won't be because the state government broke into a cell phone. Police in certain areas in the US have shot innocent people in the back, yet those states aren't seeing huge exfluxes of population due to that. If the public aren't going to move state due to an innocent being shot by a macho cop, they're sure as hell not going to move because a phone got examined. And in any case, if you really want to change this stuff, don't vote with your feet, vote with your vote. A politician doesn't care if a detractor goes elsewhere. It doesn't hurt. A politician does care if detractors vote against them - they can lose their fat-cat job. A small percentage of outraged citizens leaving the state is actually better for the politician than that same percentage creating a swing against them in the election. Voting with your feet also doesn't help if all states are going down the same path (eg: current concealed carry laws are spreading like a virus)
    - webXL 11y ago
      Don't be so pedantic. My point was that when selecting a new state, should the opportunity arise, you can factor a state's laws into your decision. Many people, particularly entrepreneurs do this everyday. Moving to get the law you want has a much higher chance of success than voting. Faster too.
      - vacri 11y ago
        Incorporating in Delaware is not moving to Delaware. And entrepreneurs aren't going to move to South Dakota if that state starts making favourable laws, because that's not where the population centers are (and hence markets for both customers and talent). Yes, you can "factor in a state's laws", but you're missing my point that no significant demographic of migrants will bother with "oh noes, that state broke into a criminal's iphone". The "invisible hand of the market as applied to the electoral system" does not apply in the OP's given context.
        webXL 11y ago
        Do you honestly think there's no level of taxation that would cause people to physically leave a populated state? There is, and this is why states are forced to keep it relatively low, just as they are forced to not impose "demented" laws.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. That's quite unlikely to be true for most people in the state, and especially unlikely to be true if they are the target of the demented thing.
- webXL 11y ago
  Why isn't it true? There may be a high cost involved for some people, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Can you provide an example why I couldn't move if the government was "targeting" me?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Can you provide an example why I couldn't move if the government was "targeting" me? Among the "demented" things that government might do that might offend your sense of rights and make you want to leave is detaining you based on based either on evidence seized (e.g., by covert surveillance) in a way you view as offensive to your rights or for violation of a newly-adopted emergency law you feel violates your rights. By the time you become aware of the "demented" action that motivates you to leave, you may no longer be free to do so, as a direct consequence of that action.

by maratd 11y ago

penrod 11y ago

Hear, hear. The freedom to vote with your feet is one of the most important characteristics of the American experiment. Among all voting methods it is uniquely effective and accessible - you get a large roster of fifty 'candidates', and the cost of moving to another state is much lower than the cost of buying an election. When power is ceded from state to federal level, diminishing the diversity of candidate states, an important form of democracy is curtailed.

vacri 11y ago

> If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. Most people can't pick up and move their lives so casually. They're certainly not going to do so en masse if a state guv breaks into a criminal's phone. Hardly a disincentive.

webXL 11y ago
Ok, you can decide not to move to a state, because my haunch is that you'll do that once or twice in your lifetime.
- vacri 11y ago
  If I move state, it won't be because the state government broke into a cell phone. Police in certain areas in the US have shot innocent people in the back, yet those states aren't seeing huge exfluxes of population due to that. If the public aren't going to move state due to an innocent being shot by a macho cop, they're sure as hell not going to move because a phone got examined. And in any case, if you really want to change this stuff, don't vote with your feet, vote with your vote. A politician doesn't care if a detractor goes elsewhere. It doesn't hurt. A politician does care if detractors vote against them - they can lose their fat-cat job. A small percentage of outraged citizens leaving the state is actually better for the politician than that same percentage creating a swing against them in the election. Voting with your feet also doesn't help if all states are going down the same path (eg: current concealed carry laws are spreading like a virus)
  - webXL 11y ago
    Don't be so pedantic. My point was that when selecting a new state, should the opportunity arise, you can factor a state's laws into your decision. Many people, particularly entrepreneurs do this everyday. Moving to get the law you want has a much higher chance of success than voting. Faster too.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Incorporating in Delaware is not moving to Delaware. And entrepreneurs aren't going to move to South Dakota if that state starts making favourable laws, because that's not where the population centers are (and hence markets for both customers and talent). Yes, you can "factor in a state's laws", but you're missing my point that no significant demographic of migrants will bother with "oh noes, that state broke into a criminal's iphone". The "invisible hand of the market as applied to the electoral system" does not apply in the OP's given context.
      - webXL 11y ago
        Do you honestly think there's no level of taxation that would cause people to physically leave a populated state? There is, and this is why states are forced to keep it relatively low, just as they are forced to not impose "demented" laws.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If my state decides to do something demented, I can move to another state. That's quite unlikely to be true for most people in the state, and especially unlikely to be true if they are the target of the demented thing.

webXL 11y ago
Why isn't it true? There may be a high cost involved for some people, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Can you provide an example why I couldn't move if the government was "targeting" me?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Can you provide an example why I couldn't move if the government was "targeting" me? Among the "demented" things that government might do that might offend your sense of rights and make you want to leave is detaining you based on based either on evidence seized (e.g., by covert surveillance) in a way you view as offensive to your rights or for violation of a newly-adopted emergency law you feel violates your rights. By the time you become aware of the "demented" action that motivates you to leave, you may no longer be free to do so, as a direct consequence of that action.