4 ms·

I would like to know why this is down voted.

• MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Probably because civil liberties shouldn't end at state lines.
  • dane-pgp 5y ago
    If only we could all agree what counts as a civil liberty (and who is entitled to them).
    • evrydayhustling 5y ago
      Whichever liberties you prefer, what makes a state line a better boundary than a federal one for choosing a policy?
      • dane-pgp 5y ago
        What makes a federal/national one better than an international one, or an individual one, for that matter? I admit, it's not an easy question, and my suggestion isn't guaranteed to work, but if there is complete deadlock and extreme polarization (potentially leading to violent conflict) at the national level, it's at least plausible that delegating some of those policies to smaller, more politically homogeneous, units might reduce the tensions, and make it easier for people to vote with their feet if they are unhappy with the rules they live under.
        • evrydayhustling 5y ago
          I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! There's a lot of common sense power to the idea that smaller political units can reach an acceptable compromise more easily, and that having multiple governments offers some choice to those who can move. But there are big factors the other way too: - The issues that most divide our definitions of liberty are aligned with differences in urban vs rural, majority vs minority, and rich vs poor. These are clustered such that they exist at state levels as much as federal. - Smaller political units are more vulnerable to outside forces ... National parties can airdrop money into local campaigns to get strategic outcomes that have little to do with the constituents. - The citizens of smaller units tend to have more direct power relations with each other, pulling them towards policies that explicitly maintain or redistribute power. This creates big problems for the less powerful, who see their position become more engrained and who often don't have the resources to vote with their feet. None of this is an answer to "what's the best unit". I think that whichever personal liberties you value, you have to be pragmatic about who is protecting them where.
          • webmaven 5y ago
            > I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! Sure, but liberty to do what? Liberty to not do what? It is difficult to reconcile one person's liberty to marry the person they love without experiencing discrimination with another's liberty to discriminate against anyone who loves the 'wrong' people. Or the right to own other people vs. the right to be free from ownership. Does the freedom to innovate protect the generation, modification, dissemination, and implementation of ideas, or protect an inventor from having to compete with copycats? Is the right to repair the equipment you own more or less important than the right of manufacturers to devise means of preventing unauthorized modifications?
      • Kinrany 5y ago
        There is less centralization and more opportunities to quit and go to a place you like better.
      • weberer 5y ago
        Its easy to move to a different state if you disagree with the policies of your current state. If you disagree with a federal law, you're pretty much screwed.
        • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
          It's easy if you're single and have a decent income. Other than that, no.
          • weberer 5y ago
            Significantly easier than moving to a different country.
            • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
              If you don't have the resources to do so, the level of difficulty is identical.
              • weberer 5y ago
                This is just silly. Minimum wage workers move across state lines all the time. The distance can be just several miles in some cases. You don't really need to do anything to do it, other than make an appointment at the DMV to update your license. Aside from that, it doesn't take any more resources than moving in-state.
                • MisterBastahrd 5y ago
                  You are making the assumption that everyone can afford to have a car. Again, that isn't the case.
                  • weberer 5y ago
                    No, I'm not. And this line of reasoning doesn't refute my original point anyway that moving to a different state is easier than moving to a different country. Let's try approaching this from a different angle. Let's have X be the number of Americans who have the resources, knowledge, and paperwork required to move to a different state. And lets have Y be the number of Americans who have the same requirements, but to move to a different country. Surely you can agree that X is a much larger number than Y, right?
    • kube-system 5y ago
      Which is why making them “optional” is not the neutral position that it might sound like at face value. Your government either recognizes that liberty, or it doesn’t. Assigning responsibility to someone else is exactly equivalent to the latter.
  • cscurmudgeon 5y ago
    But ok to end at international lines? May be a global secular government with uniform civil laws for all is the answer?
    • dane-pgp 5y ago
      Right, or a global theocratic government, depending on who wins the world war that would be necessary to bring about this utopia.
• nexuist 5y ago
  Because as long as traveling between states is free each state has to deal with the consequences of its neighbors. Why have a federal government if it’s not going to impose some kind of union that binds all the states together?
  • dane-pgp 5y ago
    I wouldn't say that travelling between Florida and Hawaii is "free", and moving your house and job across the country is not something that people regularly do. Conversely, many people choose to immigrate to the US, or emigrate from it, so although that is more difficult, it is only a difference of degree and not of kind. And of course even nations have to deal with the consequences of policies in nearby countries (or even countries the other side of the world). As for the point of having a federal government, I could turn the question around and ask what is the point of having state governments when you could just decide everything centrally. You say "some kind of union", but I think you mean "exactly the sort of union that imposes the particular restrictions on states that I think is important". It's very much an open question what the "correct" set of restrictions should be, and that list has changed over the course of US history, and has different choices in different countries.
    • nexuist 5y ago
      > It's very much an open question what the "correct" set of restrictions should be, and that list has changed over the course of US history …which is the point of Federalism. The point isn’t what I think is important, the point is what we decide collectively as a country. And when such decisions are made, everyone must go along with them, because that’s how we accomplish goals. You can’t row a boat across a river if half the people on it are rowing in the wrong direction. However, if you decide you want to go back to shore, and everyone agrees, then the system should support that too (ie repealing prohibition). For other stuff that the fed govt doesn’t care about, leave it to the states, and for the stuff the states don’t care about, leave it to the people. 10th amendment.
    • TulliusCicero 5y ago
      It's free in the sense of being generally unrestricted, not in the sense that it literally costs no money to travel.