IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

People make tradeoffs when it comes to where to live. You can surely move, but that assumes you have the financial means (if finding a new job is possible for you and your partner, and your children aren't at a point in their lives where moving would be detrimental), the support system, the friend circles, the third spaces and accompanying social systems, the kind of nature and access to that nature that you've grown used to.

Yes, there are 50 states. But besides some superficial differences, they tend to cluster in terms of policy. So, as a state slides further towards one extreme, it's not easy to decide which straw will break the camel's back. Because it could always be worse elsewhere, and is it really worth the trouble?

>relatively little friction

That word "relatively" is doing a lot of work in this phrase. 50 options sounds great until you think about the realities of it. As someone who's moved around a half dozen times, shared "values and beliefs" pales in comparison to the practical concerns of jobs, family, climate.

> and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

True when compared to emigrating to another country, which is much harder than most assume.

Moving is extremely disruptive if you have a lot of family and friends nearby, though. You go from having a huge community and social circle to almost nothing. Maybe some work friends to begin seeding a new social life, but everything has to be rebuilt.

This is why “if you don’t like it, you can leave” (the parent commenter didn’t claim this, I’m being it up separately) is not a good argument for tyrannical government decisions that get imposed on citizens of a location. They are invested in that place and have built lives there. Telling them to abandon it all and start over somewhere else is not a reasonable response. Some things have to be fought.

[delayed]

As a Canadian citizen, this is one of the things I envy about the USA the most: having 50 different choices. There is currently a lot of tension in Canada between provinces like Alberta and Quebec which want very different things but are bound by the same set of laws. In Canada you are given some choice regarding geography (although the vast majority of population lives within 100km of the southern border, so in reality if you want to live in a city there isn’t much choice), but very little choice when it comes to laws and general governance.

I personally would love to live in a western state like oregon, arizona, or new mexico where I feel like there is an appropriate balance between freedom, geography, and government for my lifestyle.

That mostly works when you're single and without any hard ties.

Uprooting a well grown tree isn't easy.

> relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

Yes, moving is possible, and easier than switching countries. But the biggest strength of the U.S. is not that people can move, but that the blast radius is contained. The strength is being able to think later "I'm glad we didn't try that everywhere at once." The strength is being able to experiment, not necessarily have states aligned to with all there residents needs within a certain threshold.

The problem is when some states get full of themselves and try to regulate wants to remove the right for local kids to see adult content by pushing complex, unmeetable requirements onto all 50 states. Texas wants to block the other 49 from sending Federally-legal medicines to Texas residents. In general, "small government" states spent a lot of time and effort making other states implement their local experiments.

If Utah wants a firewall, they can erect one at their borders. It's crazy of them to expect everyone else to do their work for them.

That and we can observe how certain policies play out. I used to be a big decriminalize drugs guy but watching it play out in a few states has had me rethink that idea. I haven't done a 180 or anything but it is something I'd be more cautious about implementing.

In theory yes, but it’s not applicable to the vast majority of people. You have to be musk or bezos to have that flexibility.

Even then as you see with the abortion ban, the folks on that side will not be satisfied without a federal level policy and they are just whittling away state by state.

>IMO, this is one of the main strengths of the US: you have 50 different options to live according to your values and beliefs, and relatively little friction if you decide to move to a state that better reflects them.

Also a weakness. Utah, one of the most stunningly beautiful states in the union, is completely under the grip of a regressive theocracy that has controlled nearly every aspect of life there for over a century. Really sucks.

AFAIK only Swiss and USA have a real federal estate. Good thing.

IN addition to everything else said downstream of your comment, I want to point out that there is a recent trend of legislation quickly being introduced across several states at once, as evidenced by the rash of "social media" teen bans and such.

It is unrealistic for many to move states or live in their ideal state, but we don't even live in the "50 different options" world anymore.

Corporate and NGO interest groups are seeing to it that your politicians and journalists are controlled from the municipal to national levels. Tribal two-party politics has reduced our world to "red" and "blue" states, and plenty authoritarian legislation has bipartisan support.

You also can't just keep playing whack-a-mole and uprooting your entire life each time a state you considered safe suddenly introduces legislation you disagree with.

Some would even argue that it isn't very patriotic to flee a community and allow it to rot instead of participating in its liberation.

Additionally, some of these "50 different options" should not exist, and only exist because of US colonialism and economic exploitation.

That's true in principle, but there's a lot of people trapped in red states who in a practical sense don't have the means to leave. I'm privileged to not have to worry about that friction, but I never forget that others do.

Not really. Show me a state that can tax corporate landlords or charge a fee for private equity owned 'anything'.

Show me a state that will invalidate the "mandatory arbitration" clauses and let me sue Google (in small claims court) if they lock me out of my account or falsely take down my video on copyright grounds. You won't find that because it's impossible.

There are minor differences between states, like gun or drug ownership. Or various tax levels. But that's about it.

Unfortunately the 10th amendment has been undermined by disingenuous readings of the commerce clause and other fuckery, and states and people have whatever scraps of power congress / the feds don't feel like asserting. If you don't like it, well, lol, the civil war established the states cannot check federal power by seceding and as we are witnessing the sky is rapidly becoming the limit.

Sure but there’s also a constitution. And inhibiting speech and expression by attacking anonymity and privacy is a violation.

Of course, SCOTUS may not see it that way. But clearly this is an imposition of the age verification strategy in project 2025, which is meant to be an imposition of Christian religious values on everyone.