3 ms·
Because a lot of people (most, even) don't have the resources required to just up and move cities, let alone states. Your 'solution' would be massively regress
by bjl 9y ago
Because a lot of people (most, even) don't have the resources required to just up and move cities, let alone states.
Your 'solution' would be massively regressive - what if Texas decides to rescind Medicaid? Are those people who cant afford to move just SOL?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Your 'solution' would be massively regressive - what if Texas decides to rescind Medicaid? Medicaid is a voluntary state-run program with federal participation standards. Texas could withdraw from Medicaid if it chose to, now. All states have chosen to participate since 1982, but they are not required to.
- bjl 9y agoOK, so use any other example. What if Florida decides to roll back gay marriage? What if Alabama rescinds the Civil Rights Act? Are those who can't afford to move supposed to just deal with it?
- subverter 9y agoThere's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. What if that happened? As it is, you'd have to move out of the country. You're relying on the right people being in office/power making the right decisions in your opinion. But of course, at any point the wrong people can get into office and make the wrong decision in your opinion. For nearly half the country, that happened when Obama entered office, and then again when Trump entered office.
- gnaritas 9y ago> There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period; those people are simply wrong, the position is immoral and indefensible. These things belong at the federal level, states should not be allowed to say oppression is OK because a majority of our citizens want to oppress gays.
- subverter 9y agoTo quote you above[1]: > That's a matter of opinion. To be clear, I am not one who is in favor of rolling back gay marriage. But you cannot logically say > Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with. It's an inconsistent position using the same argument you're railing against. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14555374
- bjl 9y agoGood thing the paradox of tolerance has been solved for over a century! Now if only we could get the message out to people like you that seem to delight in ignoring centuries of philosophical discussion on this topic.
- subverter 9y agoI'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with. I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.
- bjl 9y agoAll I can say is that I'm glad the vast majority of academia, and the population in general, think your position is indefensible.
- gnaritas 9y ago> but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree. And where in this thread has me or anyone forced our world view on you? Not allowing you to force your view on others isn't forcing our view on you. Frankly I don't think you understand what oppression or tolerance actually is.
- subverter 9y agoHow is it more regressive than the status quo where you have to move to a different country? Moving states is less difficult, moving counties is even less difficult, moving cities is even less difficult, etc. The smaller you go, the less difficult it becomes.