• Landsharkgun
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You’re applying personal freedom to a state of millions of people, which is nowhere near the same thing. People can do whatever the heck they want. States can’t, because they’re infrastructure for millions of people’s lives. Infrastructure does not get stalk angrily out of the room in a huff.

    • miak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I would have to disagree. States are just groups of people. They can hold all the rights that people hold, but cannot hold any rights people don’t hold (since those people cannot grant a right they themselves do not have).
      I struggle to see how it can be deemed acceptable to tell a state they can’t leave because it may have a negative effect on the rest of the union. This is saying that once you join the union, you are a hostage of the union. Any negative effect this has on the rest of the union is not the responsibility of that state. If the union would benefit from continued use of infrastructure in the departing state, they can try to work out an agreement around that, or the union can figure out a way to fill the gaps left in infrastructure, but it makes no sense to hold the state hostage for the sake of saving the union from the hardship.