My comment was meant to give an example of how governments can protect more local regions (which is what is being discussed), though after reading it again I can see how someone could misinterpret what I was trying to say. On that note,
Nothing about the parent comment made me think they wanted to abolish the federal government. What I took it is as we need fewer laws, fewer agencies, and much better oversight and accountability of those agencies.
If anything the Feds should be the reasonable ones since they (in theory) derive their powers from the consensus of the entire nation, whereas state governments are more likely to implement reactionary and anti-human policies, especially if located in a region where those supportive of such policies tend to congregate.
US Federal foreign policy IS fucked however, and I can see how ‘the Great Satan’ arose as an epithet.
If a local jurisdiction implements an anti-human policy, humans have the ability to "vote with their feet" and leave that jurisdiction. It is harder to migrate on an international level.
As a migrant I get it and have done it, but there are humans who cannot do it even locally.
Take some single mother in a backwards part of a backwards state making near enough the absolute minimum wage. If her rights are curtailed even further, it’s not like she can just up and move.
You need:
- the means to move
- a network (or the skills to build one) at your destination
- the general knowledge to know where is good to go to
- the street smarts to not get exploited when you arrive
Though at the same time there are many who don’t dream and just get stuck in the drudgery and lose the will the fight despite having a good shot. Demoralized.
In the article, the events occurred in the state of Nevada while the individual was a resident of the state of Texas. No Nevada residents were harmed in the creation of this article.
Migrating comes with its own dangers, risks, and unknowns. If those dangers, risks, and unknowns are deemed too high by an individual, they might choose to stay, but that doesn't mean their rights are not being violated.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.