[smt88]

It's not a family, but it is a republic, and there are people across the country from me who are not letting others live (using their votes).

"Live and let live" doesn't work when we have people trying to deprive us of rights, either with their vote or by doing things like traveling across the country to attack the federal capitol.

[busterarm]

Alternatively, people in Oklahoma and people in New York don't want the same things, don't share the same values and should be free to choose to self-govern in different ways.

"Right to Travel", as in the right to move and relocate between states, is a well-established legal doctrine. Go live where it suits you. Don't force other people to live how it suits you.

[smt88]

People in Oklahoma are not a homogenous group. Lots of people are born in Oklahoma and would prefer to live elsewhere, but they can't afford to move (or aren't old enough yet).

> Don't force other people to live how it suits you.

That's exactly what I'm advocating for. "Live and let live" is something that has to actively be enforced.

For example: I live in Georgia and voted by mail. There are people in other states who are trying to pass federal laws that make it harder for me to vote by mail.

Another example: there are people trying to take away women's rights to reproductive care (and I'm talking about contraceptives too, not just abortion).

"Live and let live" implies a passive state, but it's actually a very active state. The constant and vigorous legal activity of the ACLU is proof of that.

[busterarm]

People in Oklahoma are not culturally homogenous, but they are on average more similar to each other than they are to people in New York.

Yes, obviously there are a minority of people in Oklahoma that are stifled by living there. That doesn't mean the solution to that problem is changing their laws. Orders of magnitude more money are spent to change those laws than is spent to simply help people relocate who could otherwise not afford it.

Instead of offering charity to solve a problem you're offering force (and a tyranny of the minority).

As far as mail in voting in your state goes, states have pretty much always set their own election rules. What's actually happening right now is the opposite of what you claim. The Federal government right now is trying to institute universal mail in voting and removing States' ability to set their own election laws.

To do the other things that you're talking about takes 38 out of 50 states to agree. It's a pretty high bar -- such that it's crossed fairly infrequently. And if it does so that might just be what's best for the country as a whole.

I live in New York and am fairly liberal, but this idea that we're going to make the whole country govern the same way is fucking batshit.

[jaegerpicker]

I have done this, I moved to Southern Maine from Ohio. A large reason was the political environment. The problem is that most people aren't satisfied with live and let live. You can see this in the flooding of courts with conservative judges, the rise of the Trump style party, and the constant fight over covid. When you have two diametrically opposed groups with shared power you have to have you need a common based and view point or the whole thing falls apart. I believe that we have reached the point of no return and the USA is broken. I don't believe it can be fixed at this point.

[busterarm]

I often share the same failed state sentiment, but at the same time we're more resilient than that and I think we can and have walked back from the edge of the cliff.

I have faith that at some point we'll shake off grifters and demagogues from politics and media and collectively come together and say "no more". Sames goes for social media. There is a growing concensus around the toxicity of these things and people walking away from it. Have hope.

[willcipriano]

If it was still a republic people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all. Instead we have ended up at democracy as Aristotle long ago predicted: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."

[smt88]

I think you're conflating "republic" with "federal system". The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

> If it was still a [federal system] people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all.

The US had a system like that early on and it failed.

[jaegerpicker]

When you have a two party system and no one outside of their narrow policy definitions can be elected (not as it's illegal but as in not one can overcome the completely biased system) you vote for a representative is a de-facto vote for policies. If you vote R it's an anti-aboration, gun rights, anti-immigrant vote. If you vote D it's a gun control, immigration, climate change vote. Sure you can say we vote for reps but in reality you have the choice of R or D and nothing you say or do really changes the policies that you are voting for.

[willcipriano]

>The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

If you split hairs like that democracy never really existed at a national level anywhere. Representative democracy is still democracy as far as I am concerned.

[refenestrator]

None of this is about government power in the knitting space, though.

[willcipriano]

When the debate goes from "people want to take away your rights!" to "people in Florida want to pass a law and if you don't like it you have 49 other states to choose from" it tends to cool down the discourse a bit.