Hacker News Reader

Comment by asguy | Hacker News Reader

What about focusing on fixing the country you’re in, rather than moving to somewhere else?

You have 50 states you could explore first.

I’ve explored the states in my 20’s and 30’s and I’m pretty happy with where I ended up compared to the other options here, but I’m really at the point where I don’t see the US as making it out of this mess. Collapsing empire, so to speak.

If your primary concern is collapsing US empire, you aren’t necessarily limiting your exposure by leaving the country. A rapid collapse of US hegemony would lead to a fairly chaotic reordering of the global system.

That's fair, but I think it would be a easier transition to be... not here when it happens.

Another issue is around the slow decay into a theocracy.

You have sitting members of congress saying “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk.”, and my conservative relatives talk openly and widely around wanting to revoke the second amendment and make this a true christian nation.

Will this happen? Maybe not, but I feel like it's entirely possible that it could, and I don't want to be here for that. I grew up in a hyper religious environment and my life is measurably better existing without religion. I don't want to go back to living in that environment.

Well, on the basis of the theocracy concerns, it’s probably best to look at Northern/Western Europe, where secularism is the strongest.

You aren’t going to have to worry about a church takeover in France any time soon.

Edit: East Asia is also an option.

Wow, of all the historical ironies...

It is indeed quite ironic, but it’s the state of affairs today.

Though true separation between church and state began in France so, yeah.

I'm similar to you. I'm worried that if I don't leave soon I may get rounded up post 2024. Others may be willing to take a chance, I'm not.

I struggle to come up with something that can unite, say, California and Alabama other than a credible external threat. Their paths seems to be quite divergent at this point.

that's incredibly dismissive of alabamians who fight for progressive issues in the state. it's also harmful to the folks who suffer under the political hegemony.

It's also ignoring the large number of Californians moving to Alabama. The fact is California is too big to generalize and that's true of most states. The schism between individuals views in Alabama internally is no less than the perceived difference between views of California and Alabama as states.

No, but the pertinence of each “side” of views is way different. Whole lot of frustrated farmers in California who are dominated by the big cities. Probably a similar percentage of blue Alabama folks dominated by the Red sea. Generational change is required to alter the non-purple states and it’s not worth the effort for most people to try. Move to where the political climate is congruent with one’s philosophy is far easier.

that's definitely a take. as somebody who is in the political minority, i often feel like giving up. but i also think that giving up is the wrong thing to do.

What do you need to unite them about? Unless Alabama is imposing something untenable on California, what does California care? It can keep being California.

You're not going to unite France and Germany on everything either. But you don't have to. They just have to agree to let each other keep being France and Germany.

Gee, I don't know. How they handle women's rights, how they handle marriage rights, ... These things aren't state-level actions.

The US supreme court seems to disagree with you.

> Unless Alabama is imposing something untenable on California, what does California care?

Because California’s economy is forcibly diverted to subsidize Alabama's political decisions (given the way federal funding formulas work, largely specifically because those decisions are consistent failures in aggregate economic terms.)

Also, because being conmpelled to tolerate denials of fundamental human rights is an intolerable condition.

> Because California’s economy is forcibly diverted to subsidize Alabama's political decisions (given the way federal funding formulas work, largely specifically because those decisions are consistent failures in aggregate economic terms.)

I agree. I think that the way the US does things is kind of ridiculous.

> Also, because being conmpelled to tolerate denials of fundamental human rights is an intolerable condition.

How do you feel about the US not managing it's own petroleum production at levels to support its own use, effectively requiring propping up the Saudi regime? I think we can safely say they have a worse track record on women's rights than Alabama.

Do you feel that's intolerable as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com