4 ms·

Why is it silly though?

• vinyl7 1y ago
  It depends on your view of who should have the most say...state gov or federal gov
  • 9283409232 1y ago
    Conservatives flip on this depending on who is in the White House. Right now, the fed should run everything. Should Dems take back the White House then they will be back to supporting states' rights.
• const_cast 1y ago
  It's certainly logistically complex and you're going to lose a lot of money just to handling regulations. This is generally why I'm in favor of greater federal protections and less per-state regulation. It has a lot of unintended consequences. Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.
• dogma1138 1y ago
  Because the US has a single market, what’s next you can’t drive to California because your car isn’t compatible?
  • jvanderbot 1y ago
    Have you tried to carry a firearm across the country lately? Or contraception?
    • dogma1138 1y ago
      I think those are silly also but it’s really not the same thing. You don’t need to carry a gun, or contraception a car on the other hand is considerably more critical
      • jvanderbot 1y ago
        That's a matter of degree / subjective preference that I bet doesn't translate very well to legal precedent. If you say "What's next, a state can bar me from entry because they don't like something I'm bringing with" the answer is a resounding "Well I think they already do that".