Which is why its interesting within the concept of states rights in the united states, because immigration/emigration is trivial for the bulk of the population.
(Not to say it's pleasant - You'll obviously not be bringing everything with you when you go. But you always CAN go. And I know people who have over the gay marriage thing.)
Which is why I personally believe in greater states rights. There should be a place for almost anybody in the USA. Places like hippie communes and the such should be encouraged even and states should adapt experimental policy to determine what works and what doesn't. Feds should leave the states alone when it comes to most policy.
Americans are a highly mobile society and America is a culturally homogeneous place, for the most part. I think this lends it's self toward experimentation and variation with government policy without doing much harm to anybody. Legalize gay marriage in one state, ban it in the other, ect. Let people decide the type of society they wish to live in.
@MetalSlimeHunt
True, war and sepaertist movements tend to create a massive amount of butthurt resentment at it's conclusion, nomatter who wins. I personally find things like slavery and genocide and eating babies and violations of human rights to be indefensible, appaling and worthy for cause of invasion and there is no cultural defense for such things. I'm just not sure we are obligated to do so, or the wisdom of such meddling. I guess economic sanctions and the sort are one way of doing it, but that creates enemies the same as invasion.
The cause of freedom is something I take seriously, but I wonder how to weigh that against the policy of 'live and let live'. I also wonder what outrages are justifiable. What is horrific enough to warrant interference with a sovereign state, exactly? If moral sensitives shift we might be raging against countries doing relatively benign things.