Some folks I know recently joined the great exodus out of what used to be known as the Empire State, to make a new life in the land of cowboys and the Alamo… Texas that is. The decision was not a sudden one, but the recent gun control legislation certainly was a factor in their desire to find a less regulated home to raise their children. First day there this fellow got his Texas driver’s license, and with that was able to then purchase a hand gun within an hour. You have to deal with some pretty shady characters to pull that off in New York!
I was reminded of Sandra Bullock in “Miss Congeniality”. She played an FBI agent posing as a contestant in a beauty pageant in Texas. She tackles a man because she deems him a threat when she sees a pistol hidden beneath his jacket. Explaining herself to the pageant director she explains that the man had a gun! The director responds “Of course he had a gun, this is Texas, everybody has a gun!”. In a nutshell that shows how difficult it is for the two sides of the gun control debate to understand each other. One side associates the gun only with nefarious activity, while the other sees it as natural an accessory as a pair of boots or an oversized belt buckle.
New York, especially the City, would be a different place if we adopted Texas standards for firearms. Some would argue it would be a better place, but they don’t have the votes to reverse course; and in a democracy votes count so long as they do not infringe on rights. So New Yorkers who are offended by New York’s restrictions can fight to change things, or they can just go someplace else, like Texas. Texans offended by the lack of regulation in Texas can come here to New York; we increasingly have room for them, though there seem to be few takers on that offer.
I’m sure there must be people who are searching for a more regulated existence, but the pattern of migration seems to be the opposite, particularly for the wealthy and middle class, for whom such moves are more feasible, and more beneficial. States highly taxed and highly regulated like New York, Illinois, California, and many of the Northeast states have been bleeding population for years to less regulated, less taxed states like Texas and Florida. More importantly the people who are leaving are taking their money with them. So the states with the greatest need for a monied population to fund their burdensome social budgets are the ones losing their human resources. One only need look as far as Detroit, which has been losing one person every 22 minutes for the last ten years, to see what happens when the money leaves.
The diversity of the states is the free market at it’s best. A state that drives its population to other states will not be successful, and adjustments will need to be made, either in the standard of living or at the ballot box. Governor Cuomo seemed to be moving in that direction until returning to his roots with the Safe Act, which may have endeared him to his minions downstate, but has threatened his popularity in every upstate county except the cultural island of Tompkins. As economies of various states succeed, pressure is exerted on the other states to emulate the causes of that success. I’m not saying we’re likely to see the fracking policy that has been a boon to the economy of North Dakota here in New York, there are other considerations, but it clearly applies pressure. If you’re willing to forego a little prosperity in pursuit of high environmental standards New York or California might be your destiny… again, we have room for you!
IMHO: The diversity of the states is a wonderful thing. You can be an American without being like every other American; and you can choose your priorities by choosing where you live. The more things that are controlled by Washington the less diversity we can enjoy, and the more powerless we are to order our lives by the place we choose to live. By forcing states to comply with standards set by majorities geographically and ideologically removed from them, we alienate them by shunning the will of their people. In attempting to impose a unified policy we actually bring unintended division. This has historically not been a modus operandi restricted to one party or the other. The Federal government doesn’t handle every issue as well as local government can, and it doesn’t need to. Everyone in the country doesn’t need to agree with you on education, drug policy, gun control, and gay marriage. Federal policies enacted by both parties have sometimes tried to force round pegs into square holes, building not unity but resentment. Maintaining good relationships with neighbors sometimes means allowing them to run their house the way they see fit even if it doesn’t match what you think best, or even if it marginally affects you. If Republicans can begin to move toward embracing some of the public policy leanings of their more libertarian factions, they will distance themselves from the increasingly “central planning” orientation of the Democrats, and in so doing energize a whole range of voters. Handled correctly, a voter base could be developed from voters who disagree on a variety of issues, yet agree to disagree, and agree that we have the right to disagree. E pluribus, unum.
I’m all for local government and the diversity of the states sounds good on paper but in reality, as you said in your post, choosing a place to live based on personal preference is mostly a privilege of the wealthy. At the same time, the private sector will relentlessly take advantage of any economic benefits a particular state can offer (low tax rates, lax environmental regulations etc.), just to move on to an even more “business-friendly” place when the time has come. Those left behind typically do not have the means to relocate and, even worse, their local economies have often been destroyed by the very corporations they once worked for. The so-called free market is driven by profit alone and if we allow states to compete based on free-market principles, maximizing profit for the private sector will be the only indicator of success. I agree with you that many aspects of our lives are best governed locally but we do need firm nationwide standards, especially when it comes to issues that affect our society as a whole. And the damage done to the environment by the fracking industry in North Dakota will eventually affect us all, even if don’t live there.
@tsc444: “The diversity of the states sounds good on paper”… sounds even better on the parchment of the Constitution with their associated sovereignty and delegated powers! Reality extends beyond the last 20 years, and people have been migrating for years, even the poor, often the poor. I’m privileged in my work to make contact with people of all classes, and find it common for poorer people to have migrated here to New York often from southern states. People without “stuff”, jobs, or complicated lives sometimes find it not impossible to buy a bus ticket to move to greener pastures. Richer people have the funds to do all that it takes to relocate. It seems most often to be the middle class who are tied to their jobs, mortgages, and support structure that find it difficult to relocate.
It’s easy to speak of “local” government and state sovereignty, but the test of that is when a state wants to allow something you don’t like. One can always argue that what happens in one state affects us all to one extent or another, and one of the delegated powers of the Federal government is to settle disputes between the states… not to set standards to avoid disputes. If a concrete detriment can be proven (as was the case with acid rain) there is no problem with Washington intervening. If a similar case can be made against fracking in North Dakota affecting another state adversely, then that should be settled judicially, not politically.
The “free market” is driven by many factors, profit being the major one for many businesses, though certainly not the only one, it is business after all, not church. If a business friendly environment were all that mattered to all these businesses, New York would have no businesses. It seems more often that for most businesses, the profit differential has to be substantial, and many that are making an adequate profit are content to stay in a location until they are essentially forced to move. Of course there are cut throat corporations like GE that seem to have no social conscience. I refuse to buy GE products, but as long as what they do is legal I am hesitant to seek remedy from regulatory fiat to compensate for the people’s failure to directly hold a company accountable for its actions. Sometimes we do get what we deserve.