Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Except
A) Those laws aren't capitalist laws... they're statist laws. Capitalist laws would suggest the majority of them shouldn't exist because it distorts the marketplace. Allowing only the minium amount required to keep markets running regularly.
B) Utility wise, again it would make sense for Texas to leave. Texas has historically been a huge net payer to the government, believes it's having it's rights infringed by the government and has an economy so big it'd be one of the richest countries in the world. Nor do i particularly see any evidence that there would be a huge backslide in other rights in regards to texas. So economically and freedom wise they would advance.
Palestine on the otherhand would advance freedoms wise, but regress greatly on the economic front, since most palestinian buisness is kind of held up by Israel. The areas that get ceeded back to Palestine? They'd collapse from middle class to poor in no time flat.
Scotland... would be a less extreme version of the same. They would advance quite a bit "human rights" wise compaired to the rest of the UK. While economically hurt.
Your approach doesn't really seem utlitarian so much as again, your personal preference based more on personal opinion then specific data.
|
As i've said, ten years since Lawrence v Texas and the schoolbook silliness, as well as Texas' refusal to abide by the federal government's mandates on access to women's health care.
Also, i thought Texas was a net taker too, though perhaps not, due to the oil.
|
A) Lawrence vs Texas likely happened before you were born... seems silly to still consider it. The only silliness with the textbooks was that the media mentioned it... as that happens in a number of states. California and New York do the same thing.
and as for women's healthcare... again that's your personal judgement clouding your view.
There really isn't any solid factual abortion evidence on when a person is a human or not or any of that.
Hence, from a utilitarian factual point of view, you wouldn't have any real reasons.
B) They are a net taker currently. Pretty much every state is because of the gigantic deficit the federal government is running. Historically however they haven't been.
|
I had said, ten years, Lawrence v Texas was 2003, so up until that point it was illegal to have gay sex in Texas; ten years ago. Not that long a period.
And research i've done shows that healthy women and healthy pregnancies are some of the best ways to advance the well-being of society, in both a material and political sense. It was one of the major contributing factors towards a country's ability to democratize.
