6 ms·

IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if

• roumenguha 5mo ago
  People make tradeoffs when it comes to where to live. You can surely move, but that assumes you have the financial means (if finding a new job is possible for you and your partner, and your children aren't at a point in their lives where moving would be detrimental), the support system, the friend circles, the third spaces and accompanying social systems, the kind of nature and access to that nature that you've grown used to. Yes, there are 50 states. But besides some superficial differences, they tend to cluster in terms of policy. So, as a state slides further towards one extreme, it's not easy to decide which straw will break the camel's back. Because it could always be worse elsewhere, and is it really worth the trouble?
  • jnovek 5mo ago
    I think people who aren’t or haven’t been poor often don’t realize that moving to another state — or even away from your hometown — is a privilege that is cost prohibitive for many Americans.
    • dylan604 5mo ago
      This is definitely something lost in an echo chamber like HN. Moving out of state is quite expensive. Most jobs do not provide moving expenses as a perk of the new job and receiving them shows just how privileged you are. For the foreseeable future the fuel costs of moving will also contribute to that expense making it worse. Some family connections make it very difficult for some to break away. For those that can, it is hard to understand.
    • mathgladiator 5mo ago
      I've been homeless and in debt and still moved. It's 100% mindset.
• add-sub-mul-div 5mo ago
  That's true in principle, but there's a lot of people trapped in red states who in a practical sense don't have the means to leave. I'm privileged to not have to worry about that friction, but I never forget that others do.
  • __turbobrew__ 5mo ago
    There are lots of people “trapped” in blue states too, if that is how you want to put it.
    • nine_k 5mo ago
      Blue states are mostly states with large coastal cities, and thus larger incomes.
      • giantg2 5mo ago
        You seem to forget that those states tend to have rural (red) populations that get affected by the laws the larger population in the cities pass at the state level.
        • nine_k 5mo ago
          This is true. I just mean that moving becomes less hard if you earn more due to the general higher level of wages in your area near a big and prosperous city.
          • giantg2 5mo ago
            Sure, but that doesn't work if you're in the scenario we are talking about - red person in a rural part of a blue state. They will still have restricted income.
        • rootusrootus 5mo ago
          I am trying to think of examples of blue state majorities oppressing rural populations. Allowing gays to marry if they want, does that count as oppressing rural Christians?
• Aurornis 5mo ago
  > and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them. True when compared to emigrating to another country, which is much harder than most assume. Moving is extremely disruptive if you have a lot of family and friends nearby, though. You go from having a huge community and social circle to almost nothing. Maybe some work friends to begin seeding a new social life, but everything has to be rebuilt. This is why “if you don’t like it, you can leave” (the parent commenter didn’t claim this, I’m being it up separately) is not a good argument for tyrannical government decisions that get imposed on citizens of a location. They are invested in that place and have built lives there. Telling them to abandon it all and start over somewhere else is not a reasonable response. Some things have to be fought.
  • Ajedi32 5mo ago
    Fair point, though I still think it's a pretty good backstop if the worst thing a tyrannical government can do to you is force you to move 100 miles.
    • jermaustin1 5mo ago
      I hate slipper slope arguments, but the march to tyranny is a very shallow slope of ice. Tomorrow it's "move 100 miles." Next year it's "pay $100 for the exit toll." In 2030 it's "we only allow 100 people to exit per day."
      • Ajedi32 5mo ago
        Right, this doesn't work in sovereign nations, only in federalism where there's a federal government that can guarantee some minimal set of freedoms to everyone (like the freedom to move to another state without impediment). Otherwise you just get the Berlin Wall.
    • magicalist 5mo ago
      Where are you moving to 100 miles from Salt Lake City?
    • 5mo ago
• __turbobrew__ 5mo ago
  As a Canadian citizen, this is one of the things I envy about the USA the most: having 50 different choices. There is currently a lot of tension in Canada between provinces like Alberta and Quebec which want very different things but are bound by the same set of laws. In Canada you are given some choice regarding geography (although the vast majority of population lives within 100km of the southern border, so in reality if you want to live in a city there isn’t much choice), but very little choice when it comes to laws and general governance. I personally would love to live in a western state like oregon, arizona, or new mexico where I feel like there is an appropriate balance between freedom, geography, and government for my lifestyle.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
• mothballed 5mo ago
  Unfortunately the 10th amendment has been undermined by disingenuous readings of the commerce clause and other fuckery, and states and people have whatever scraps of power congress / the feds don't feel like asserting. If you don't like it, well, lol, the civil war established the states cannot check federal power by seceding and as we are witnessing the sky is rapidly becoming the limit.
  • nine_k 5mo ago
    There's still plenty of difference between e.g. Texas and California. There ought to be some significant level of cohesion between constituent states in a federation (like the US or India) or even a confederation (like the EU or Switzerland), else the common market and the common law system won't be able to function. It should not be overdone though.
• SilverElfin 5mo ago
  Sure but there’s also a constitution. And inhibiting speech and expression by attacking anonymity and privacy is a violation. Of course, SCOTUS may not see it that way. But clearly this is an imposition of the age verification strategy in project 2025, which is meant to be an imposition of Christian religious values on everyone.
• pjmlp 5mo ago
  That mostly works when you're single and without any hard ties. Uprooting a well grown tree isn't easy.
  • mothballed 5mo ago
    There's also some double standards. If you walk from Ecuador to Texas, passing through the Darien Gap and one of your kids gets ripped into some river never to be seen again, finally showing up in El Paso to sleep under a bridge until the heat exhaustion goes away, then you are a glorious immigrant who put it all on the line to give your family a better life. If you hitch-hike from California to Vermont while feeding your kids whatever rats and river water you can dredge up and then set up a tent in the forest until you can score a job at Dollar General, then you are an evil neglectful bastard and the state will be on your ass and take your kids away. You might be better off actually moving countries if you are broke. Because for whatever reason it is better tolerated because you can just say you were broke and your children went through hard times because the last country was evil or something.
    • washingupliquid 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      • dan353hehe 5mo ago
        I'm guessing you have never driven though Nevada.
        • washingupliquid 5mo ago
          > driven Yes, unlike the Darien, Nevada has a few roads for the Californians to sneak in and out.
      • rootusrootus 5mo ago
        For Californians, or everyone else?
    • 5mo ago
• djeastm 5mo ago
  >relatively little friction That word "relatively" is doing a lot of work in this phrase. 50 options sounds great until you think about the realities of it. As someone who's moved around a half dozen times, shared "values and beliefs" pales in comparison to the practical concerns of jobs, family, climate.
  • Rekindle8090 5mo ago
    [dead]
  • f1shy 5mo ago
    Still easier to move country inside the EU, as an example.
    • deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    • chrisweekly 5mo ago
      What? That seems highly improbable. Moving to a different US state is pretty trivial.
      • kstrauser 5mo ago
        Right? That's a ludicrous assertion. Here's what's required to move somewhere else within the US: 1. Move. At some point, you have to get a new driver's license in your new state and transfer your car registration there to use their license plate instead of your old state's. Those are "mechanical" paperwork transactions, though. You show up at the Department of Motor Vehicles with proof of your new address and they scowl at you and then issue the new one. You don't have to ask permission: so long as you meet the local requirements to do those things (like pass the local driving test, have a car that passes the appropriate inspections), and have the right paperwork (like proof of address, proof of ownership of the car, etc.), you'll get it. And that's the "hard" part. I've moved between states multiple times. With the sole exception of car-related stuff, the only difference between moving between a different apartment in the same complex and moving across the country is that you have to pay your taxes somewhere different the next year.
• ramesh31 5mo ago
  >IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them. Also a weakness. Utah, one of the most stunningly beautiful states in the union, is completely under the grip of a regressive theocracy that has controlled nearly every aspect of life there for over a century. Really sucks.
  • aworks 5mo ago
    I've visited various parts of Utah in the last year. It doesn't particularly reflect my life choices and I doubt I would ever move there. But their cultural values seem to have resulted in a prosperous state compared to most other Mountain West states (or even most Midwestern states). I think it's also doing well re: reproductive rate. I expect it to continue be a thriving place for years to come.
  • iamnothere 5mo ago
    Isn’t that the choice of the people who live there? Personally I am for cultures deciding their own local laws and customs, whether it’s Utah, India, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, or England, no matter how repugnant I may find their choices.
    • deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  • red-iron-pine 5mo ago
    regressive tho it may be, I'd rather live in Utah than most of the South. I'd take SLC over all of Mississippi, for example. The VPN thing skews that a little more -- and is hilarious given how it's like the state that is largest consumer of internet porn -- but the city is far more livable than people give it credit.
    • ramesh31 5mo ago
      >regressive tho it may be, I'd rather live in Utah than most of the South. Yeah fair you got me there
• yalogin 5mo ago
  In theory yes, but it’s not applicable to the vast majority of people. You have to be musk or bezos to have that flexibility. Even then as you see with the abortion ban, the folks on that side will not be satisfied without a federal level policy and they are just whittling away state by state.
• kstrauser 5mo ago
  The problem is when some states get full of themselves and try to regulate wants to remove the right for local kids to see adult content by pushing complex, unmeetable requirements onto all 50 states. Texas wants to block the other 49 from sending Federally-legal medicines to Texas residents. In general, "small government" states spent a lot of time and effort making other states implement their local experiments. If Utah wants a firewall, they can erect one at their borders. It's crazy of them to expect everyone else to do their work for them.
  • cucumber3732842 5mo ago
    How's this any different than CA telling merchants across the country they can't ship in all manner of products?
    • iamnothere 5mo ago
      That is also a problem. Although in the case of CA it’s not extrajudicial regulation that is the issue; it’s the size of the CA market that causes most manufacturers to design for that market’s regulations. Just as the EU doesn’t require companies to use USB-C globally, but their regulations are having a global impact.
• f1shy 5mo ago
  AFAIK only Swiss and USA have a real federal estate. Good thing.
  • dgellow 5mo ago
    What do you mean by real? Germany, Russia are federation, what makes them not real ones?
    • f1shy 5mo ago
      The power of the central part.
• gosub100 5mo ago
  Not really. Show me a state that can tax corporate landlords or charge a fee for private equity owned 'anything'. Show me a state that will invalidate the "mandatory arbitration" clauses and let me sue Google (in small claims court) if they lock me out of my account or falsely take down my video on copyright grounds. You won't find that because it's impossible. There are minor differences between states, like gun or drug ownership. Or various tax levels. But that's about it.
• fearmerchant 5mo ago
  That and we can observe how certain policies play out. I used to be a big decriminalize drugs guy but watching it play out in a few states has had me rethink that idea. I haven't done a 180 or anything but it is something I'd be more cautious about implementing.
• swsieber 5mo ago
  > relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them. Yes, moving is possible, and easier than switching countries. But the biggest strength of the U.S. is not that people can move, but that the blast radius is contained. The strength is being able to think later "I'm glad we didn't try that everywhere at once." The strength is being able to experiment, not necessarily have states aligned to with all there residents needs within a certain threshold.
• soulofmischief 5mo ago
  In addition to everything else said downstream of your comment, I want to point out that there is a recent trend of legislation quickly being introduced across several states at once, as evidenced by the rash of "social media" teen bans and such. It is unrealistic for many to move states or live in their ideal state, but we don't even live in the "50 different options" world anymore. Corporate and NGO interest groups are seeing to it that your politicians and journalists are controlled from the municipal to national levels. Tribal two-party politics has reduced our world to "red" and "blue" states, and plenty authoritarian legislation has bipartisan support. You also can't just keep playing whack-a-mole and uprooting your entire life each time a state you considered safe suddenly introduces legislation you disagree with. Some would even argue that it isn't very patriotic to flee a community and allow it to rot instead of participating in its liberation.
• 0xbadcafebee 5mo ago
  All the states are passing these laws, as part of a coordinated billion-dollar lobbying campaign.
  • red-iron-pine 5mo ago
    by facebook.