Thankfully we can at least provide somewhere to go for many of them, and we will continue to serve as a rallying point for developing better policy at the national level when the opportunity arises.
family/neighborhood/city/state/country/empire/hemisphere/world. Always weird to me where people draw the line. Bigger means more folks get to say what your rights are. Smaller means less people get the widely agreed rights.
Well, if every state had the same laws we wouldn’t have a fallback position. We thankfully have the option of pushing to change federal law when the opportunity arises, but as we’ve seen since the election there’s a degree of flimsiness there. Having strong state-level legislation in places where it isn’t too controversial preserves better policy through bad administrations. We can continue to serve as an example and build support, and it gives people somewhere to go if they need to get out of their own states.
Without more atomic and variable state laws, it would be much harder to make real progress at a national level. The EU’s model of smaller nations banding together lends itself to a similar strategy. It means you can build consensus at the local level, show that what you want works, and build out from there.
I’d love to see more of the policies we have locally applied to a national level, but they certainly wouldn’t get there if we didn’t have a more isolated arena in which to develop them. Conservatives can take advantage of localized political development too, but they lack the benefit of not being evil.
I’m glad for you.
Still shitty that so many in this country don’t.
Thankfully we can at least provide somewhere to go for many of them, and we will continue to serve as a rallying point for developing better policy at the national level when the opportunity arises.
family/neighborhood/city/state/country/empire/hemisphere/world. Always weird to me where people draw the line. Bigger means more folks get to say what your rights are. Smaller means less people get the widely agreed rights.
Well, if every state had the same laws we wouldn’t have a fallback position. We thankfully have the option of pushing to change federal law when the opportunity arises, but as we’ve seen since the election there’s a degree of flimsiness there. Having strong state-level legislation in places where it isn’t too controversial preserves better policy through bad administrations. We can continue to serve as an example and build support, and it gives people somewhere to go if they need to get out of their own states.
Without more atomic and variable state laws, it would be much harder to make real progress at a national level. The EU’s model of smaller nations banding together lends itself to a similar strategy. It means you can build consensus at the local level, show that what you want works, and build out from there.
I’d love to see more of the policies we have locally applied to a national level, but they certainly wouldn’t get there if we didn’t have a more isolated arena in which to develop them. Conservatives can take advantage of localized political development too, but they lack the benefit of not being evil.