Greg Abbott is taking a stand to protect his state’s right to let children die in the Rio Grande, and four justices of the Supreme Court are encouraging him to do so.
Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it’s membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.
At it’s most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.
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.
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.
Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it’s membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.
At it’s most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.
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.
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.