Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'(upi.com)
upi.com
Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/05/19/Oregon-Idaho-Donald-Trump-Joe-Biden/3341621450876/
660 comments
I get the feeling the people behind the proposal aren't doing it for political gain. It sounds like they are fully resigned to their group's lack of political power in the region, and just want some respite.
Less competitive elections sound great to me. That would imply that whoever won would have good majority support and maybe politics would fade into the background where it belongs.
Less competitive elections sound great to me. That would imply that whoever won would have good majority support and maybe politics would fade into the background where it belongs.
I’ve lived in Oregon most my life. Not unlike Washington (or many other states), when you get out of the metro areas the voting turns from “blue” to “red” pretty quickly. East of Bend has significantly more in common with Idaho than the valley (Portland, Salem, Eugene) or the coast- in fact there is a section of eastern Oregon even in the Mountain time zone. Once you get 200+ miles east of Portland, you’re closer (and more likely) to go to Boise than you’ll ever come to Portland.
For reference, Baker City, a larger eastern Oregon population center, is approximately 300 miles from Portland and about 140 from Boise. Pendleton may be about equidistant. I’ve got acquaintances and friends that have only been to the western side of the state a few times in their life and they’re more likely to spend their time in Idaho or Nevada than come west.
The way of life out there is completely foreign to most on the western side of the state, and the eastern side thinks the west is full of “crazy liberals”. It’s been that way my whole life, but the last few years have made it seem completely broken.
I spend a lot of time out east, whether it is Idaho or Oregon, I’ll still spend my time out there- but I’d love to find a way to prevent the divorce (that they’ve been talking about since before I was born).
For reference, Baker City, a larger eastern Oregon population center, is approximately 300 miles from Portland and about 140 from Boise. Pendleton may be about equidistant. I’ve got acquaintances and friends that have only been to the western side of the state a few times in their life and they’re more likely to spend their time in Idaho or Nevada than come west.
The way of life out there is completely foreign to most on the western side of the state, and the eastern side thinks the west is full of “crazy liberals”. It’s been that way my whole life, but the last few years have made it seem completely broken.
I spend a lot of time out east, whether it is Idaho or Oregon, I’ll still spend my time out there- but I’d love to find a way to prevent the divorce (that they’ve been talking about since before I was born).
Less competitive elections sound great to me. That would imply that whoever won would have good majority support and maybe politics would fade into the background where it belongs.
Less competitive elections, at the federal level, are where we are now. As House seats have been gerrymandered to favor mostly conservatives (though liberals play the game too), we get more districts willing to elect extremists like MTG who are unwilling to compromise and hold positions anathema to the majority of the country.
Competitive elections should be more likely to result in moderate candidates, and therefore moderate elected politicians. In theory, this eventually leads to more compromise, and hopefully more progress. With extremists on both sides, we get lots of sound-bites, lots of feigned (and maybe real) anger, and not a lot gets done (and by "nothing gets done", I'm talking about things like government shutdowns because recalcitrant conservatives like McConnell refuse to play ball).
Less competitive elections, at the federal level, are where we are now. As House seats have been gerrymandered to favor mostly conservatives (though liberals play the game too), we get more districts willing to elect extremists like MTG who are unwilling to compromise and hold positions anathema to the majority of the country.
Competitive elections should be more likely to result in moderate candidates, and therefore moderate elected politicians. In theory, this eventually leads to more compromise, and hopefully more progress. With extremists on both sides, we get lots of sound-bites, lots of feigned (and maybe real) anger, and not a lot gets done (and by "nothing gets done", I'm talking about things like government shutdowns because recalcitrant conservatives like McConnell refuse to play ball).
The elections aren’t so much less competitive, the competition simply exists at an extreme because there’s no upside to moderation in a partisan primary.
Like California? Voters are very liberal, but they hate the Democratic Party.
Like in Russia or China?
How about just like an Eisenhower or Kennedy or Mandela? Competition isn't a good sign in politics, it just means people havent reached a good consensus.
Competition is the best sign of healthy politics. It means many different ideas are being expressed and debated. Politics is supposed to be an eternal struggle against competing ideas.
Stagnation is death.
Stagnation is death.
The difference with Eisenhower and Kennedy is that they were elected in eras when people were much more likely to switch their votes between parties - on average elections we were much more competitive.
That assumes there’s some ideal that can be reached or an ideal leader rather than an ever evolving set of solutions.
Competition is vital in politics. What isn’t so good is when nobody can actually win.
Competition is vital in politics. What isn’t so good is when nobody can actually win.
Both Eisenhower and Kennedy were moderates who could not get elected in a gerrymandered district because their strategy of appealing to the national center does not work in an idea logically homogenous district.
People who are into this sort of thing are typically not so good at analysis.
Every few years some Republican assemblyman proposes splitting “downstate” NY from “upstate”. (itself a matter of debate in some quarters)
It gets some play with the AM radio crowd, than someone shows the guy the math, and they go back to some other issue.
Every few years some Republican assemblyman proposes splitting “downstate” NY from “upstate”. (itself a matter of debate in some quarters)
It gets some play with the AM radio crowd, than someone shows the guy the math, and they go back to some other issue.
One day, the math person isn't going to convince them otherwise.
Sure, and then the upstate counties vote to secede, and the state legislature, dominated by the population center they are trying to secede from says no, and under the Constitution that’s explicitly, unambiguously the ball game, even if you have a friendly federal Congress that would have been willing to approve it.
Barring ratification of a federal Constitutional Amendment stripping the requirement for states to approve any erection of new states using all or part of the land of an existing state, none of these “secession from a state to form a new state or join an adjacent state motivated mainly by partisan interests hostile to the dominant parry of the state being seceded from” moves is ever going to go anywhere.
Barring ratification of a federal Constitutional Amendment stripping the requirement for states to approve any erection of new states using all or part of the land of an existing state, none of these “secession from a state to form a new state or join an adjacent state motivated mainly by partisan interests hostile to the dominant parry of the state being seceded from” moves is ever going to go anywhere.
Does this deserve to be flagged? It would certainly if it were aimed at any other group of people.
Funny how your criticism of ‘bad analysis’ is actually a clear admission of the plain fact that liberal metros are farming the surrounding counties for revenues and offer nothing in return.
“No sir, your analysis is dead wrong; we’ve built our entire system on the expectation of money flowing from you to us. You are clearly too stupid to understand this. Pay up.”
“No sir, your analysis is dead wrong; we’ve built our entire system on the expectation of money flowing from you to us. You are clearly too stupid to understand this. Pay up.”
Grant voted 1,471 to 895 for county officials “to meet and discuss relocating Idaho border.”
Lake voted 1,341 to 463 for the “relocation of Idaho border” to be taken up in “county board of commissioners meetings.”
Malheur voted 3,050 to 2,572 for “county court meetings regarding relocation of Oregon-Idaho border.”
Sherman voted 429 to 260 in favor of “promoting moving Oregon-Idaho border.”
Baker voted 3,064 to 2,307 for county commissioners “to meet three times per year to discuss a proposal to include 18 counties, including Baker, as part of Idaho,” the Baker City Herald reported. Baker County results are not yet available from the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office.
[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/05/more-oregon-coun...
There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.
> There’s also the question of whether or not Idaho would actually want to take them.
There’s also the question of whether Congress and Oregon would want to support the change, both of which, in addition to the consent of Idaho’s legislature, are required under Article IV Sec. 3 of the US Constitution before a new state can be formed of the existing state of Idaho and parts of the existing state of Oregon.
There’s also the question of whether Congress and Oregon would want to support the change, both of which, in addition to the consent of Idaho’s legislature, are required under Article IV Sec. 3 of the US Constitution before a new state can be formed of the existing state of Idaho and parts of the existing state of Oregon.
From a purely fiscal perspective Oregon should be happy to rid itself of these counties (and Idaho stupid for accepting them) - with the exception of Jackson and (maybe) Josephine counties all of these regions are financial dead-weights that cost far more tax dollars to maintain than they generate. I currently work in Grant, Harney, and Deschutes counties and previously worked in Lake and Klamath Counties… and these are beautiful areas populated with wonderful people (and a lot of meth) and having them annexed from Oregon would be depressing… but as someone who would remain in Oregon with the changed borders I am all for it. That said, this whole initiative is going nowhere. It’s like the South’s last breath in fighting against the Unionization of the States, a losing battle.
Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base? They purposely avoid even Bend because that’s where Oregon starts getting liberal.
That’s why we have net-donor states like California, to subsidize poor right-ring net-taker states like Idaho.
[deleted]
> Could Idaho afford to incorporate that much more rural land without cities to increase its tax base?
Sure, because by incorporating more economically underperforming areaa and dropping its per capita GDP, its federal funding share under many state-federal programs woild go up, increasing the degree to which if is subsidized by the rest of the country, including the reduced Oregon, which would get lesser proportion of federal funding for the same programs by shedding underperforming regions.
Sure, because by incorporating more economically underperforming areaa and dropping its per capita GDP, its federal funding share under many state-federal programs woild go up, increasing the degree to which if is subsidized by the rest of the country, including the reduced Oregon, which would get lesser proportion of federal funding for the same programs by shedding underperforming regions.
Sounds like the governor of Idaho is down with it:
In an interview with Fox News, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he understands why some rural Oregonians want to redraw the borders.
"They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values, Little told Fox News. What they’re interested in is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that."
In an interview with Fox News, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he understands why some rural Oregonians want to redraw the borders.
"They’re looking at Idaho fondly because of our regulatory atmosphere, our values, Little told Fox News. What they’re interested in is they would like to have a little more autonomy, a little more control, a little more freedom and I can understand that."
That sounds like the govenor understands their point of view, not that he is willing to take on the massive legal and political battle that would ensue if this moved forwards.
Not to mention, it's not really the governor's call to make. It'd have to make it through the Idaho legislature first, and I get the feeling they'd be less keen, particularly once numbers and figures start getting talked about. The proposed counties to secede, for example, don't have a great connection to Idaho proper that stays in-state.
Also, Boise is farther from these counties than Salem, so it's not especially clear that representation would be significantly better.
Also, Boise is farther from these counties than Salem, so it's not especially clear that representation would be significantly better.
I've read that they are interested. It would extend Idaho to the Pacific Ocean and give them a seaport in Coos Bay, if certain adjoining counties in the proposal join.
Idaho has a "seaport" already, in Lewiston (across the border from Clarkston WA). You get there by way of the Columbia River and locks. I often haul giant rolls of paper in my semi from the papermill in Lewiston.
Also by way of the Snake river (which gets to the Columbia just before the tri cities). The snake river goes all the Jackson hole, but isn’t navigable for most of that (well, those parts are very good for white water rafting).
That implies that Idaho has the money to build a deepwater port and connecting infrastructure that currently doesn’t exist. And there’s not really any particular benefit since there is free movement of goods in the US; customs fees are not a state level thing to begin with.
Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work.
The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physical sense as well as in the sourced income sense. A citizen should be able to approach this from either the government side (pick a city or unincorporated area) or enter their zipcode and approximate income and see where the money is flowing from and to. Of particular interest would be trying to categorize areas with positive or negative contributions to a person's or region's productivity. Investments in infrastructure, such as education or for transport (of various things), should also be given special categorization as they are some combination of a shared burden and long term payoff.
Though I find understanding the deeply divided viewpoints in the US very elusive. My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions.
# Possibly religious, in that some interpretation of ancient values systems drives them to desire a simple world in which those are imposed upon others?
# Possibly anarchist, in the sense of some romantic fantasy of self reliance (minimal government) and true grit; while forgetting or being ignorant of how society and government provide benefits (E.G. civil services such as fire, medical, and security aid).
# Possibly just believing the lies of people that say things they want to hear.
Or maybe the driving force is something different entirely that I haven't realized because it's just so obvious to someone that believes in it that it doesn't get said.
Offhand I don't think it's likely to be religiously based, and if it's charismatic attraction based I'm not sure what siren song is luring the voters.
I wonder if the interactive report on government spending and tax effectiveness might help find a common ground, or at least salient points to discuss for those who don't understand the benefits of buying in bulk and enriching the commons.
The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physical sense as well as in the sourced income sense. A citizen should be able to approach this from either the government side (pick a city or unincorporated area) or enter their zipcode and approximate income and see where the money is flowing from and to. Of particular interest would be trying to categorize areas with positive or negative contributions to a person's or region's productivity. Investments in infrastructure, such as education or for transport (of various things), should also be given special categorization as they are some combination of a shared burden and long term payoff.
Though I find understanding the deeply divided viewpoints in the US very elusive. My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions.
# Possibly religious, in that some interpretation of ancient values systems drives them to desire a simple world in which those are imposed upon others?
# Possibly anarchist, in the sense of some romantic fantasy of self reliance (minimal government) and true grit; while forgetting or being ignorant of how society and government provide benefits (E.G. civil services such as fire, medical, and security aid).
# Possibly just believing the lies of people that say things they want to hear.
Or maybe the driving force is something different entirely that I haven't realized because it's just so obvious to someone that believes in it that it doesn't get said.
Offhand I don't think it's likely to be religiously based, and if it's charismatic attraction based I'm not sure what siren song is luring the voters.
I wonder if the interactive report on government spending and tax effectiveness might help find a common ground, or at least salient points to discuss for those who don't understand the benefits of buying in bulk and enriching the commons.
I would love to see the data, but from the data I have seen, the data conflict with the popular (populist) narrative. A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has nothing to do with work ethic, it's just a hard fact that a lot of costs scale with square miles instead of with people (roads, emergency services), and that lower cost of living in the country leads to lower incomes which lead to lower tax revenue.
Part of this has to do with how we've been able to drive down agricultural costs by means of automation over the last century which has driven a move away from family farms to larger corporate farms. In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent.[1]
Sure the coasts are creating more economic output by far, but people need to eat food. Agriculture is always going to be important, but lot less people are involved in it than ever before. This is part of what's led to the urban/rural divide where the rural folks feel left out - there just aren't as many of them as populations have migrated to cities. This is why people in rural areas feel increasingly left out. It's mostly due to economic forces that are out of their control.
[1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...
Sure the coasts are creating more economic output by far, but people need to eat food. Agriculture is always going to be important, but lot less people are involved in it than ever before. This is part of what's led to the urban/rural divide where the rural folks feel left out - there just aren't as many of them as populations have migrated to cities. This is why people in rural areas feel increasingly left out. It's mostly due to economic forces that are out of their control.
[1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...
I definitely don't think we should ignore or minimize the contributions of rural Americans. I do think we need to do a better job of making the costs associated with rural life more explicit. This is a big deal in California, where people have pushed further and further into the wilderness, putting themselves at huge risk for wildfires while also increasing the number of miles of power lines that need to be built and maintained; these very power lines are one of the main causes of wildfires.
New power lines are almost never the cause of wildfires. Old, poorly-maintained lines are. For example, the Camp fire that killed 86 people was caused by a hundred year old line that hadn't been serviced in decades. For miles of line around the origin site of the fire the C-hooks looked like this: https://i.imgur.com/r42KsHR.jpg
Total installed powerline length vs population is a problem.
Whether they're new / old or well / poorly serviced is just a difference of a few decades.
If there isn't money to service old lines now, then there won't be money to service formerly-new lines in 30 years.
Whether they're new / old or well / poorly serviced is just a difference of a few decades.
If there isn't money to service old lines now, then there won't be money to service formerly-new lines in 30 years.
It's not a question of insufficient funds. They spent five billion dollars on shareholder dividends while corporate documents show they were completely aware the equipment was breaking down and posed a wildfire risk, and they broke multiple state regulations to do so.
Some background to add to the above: https://twitter.com/tubetimeus/status/1306366930899460097 and https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/30/CFReport/PGE-THE-CAMP...
The Camp fire report was riveting after-work reading. The financial engineering to avoid opex and instead magnify capex as a way to bilk the ratepayer is ingenious and evil. Further, their operating procedures and culture seem carefully engineered as a liability dodge. Read the report, it's amazing.
You have to be careful with the 80/20 US Census split numbers between urban/rural. Between myself and a couple neighbors, we're on 100 acres next to even more conservation land. One neighbor has an apple orchard. Another a Christmas tree farm. The town I'm in is considered urban because we're near a major city and adjacent to another small city.
But you are urban. You are near a major city, and adjacent another small one like you said. Urban versus rural is not a measure of closeness to nature, it's a measure of closeness to other humans.
It depends on your definitions. A lot of people would object to defining urban as encompassing having to drive anywhere except to connect to immediate neighbors. I can basically go to my two immediate neighbors. Otherwise I have to get in a car. Is that urban?
Rural is defined in USA here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...
So that basically says that essentially no one in the state of MA is rural and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural. Which probably doesn't correspond to how average people think about rural vs. urban. So the fact that I can look off my back deck and see nothing but trees is a reasonable urban environment.
> and that almost no one in the state of CA is rural
Kinda crazy to see the entire I-5 length between San Francisco and Los Angeles classified as "metro". Perhaps the metric they're using doesn't work so well when counties (which is what they classify) are so large, and they primarily care that some city of over 50k people exists in it "somewhere". Some of those counties appear to be as large as or larger than some of the smaller states in the Northeast.
Kinda crazy to see the entire I-5 length between San Francisco and Los Angeles classified as "metro". Perhaps the metric they're using doesn't work so well when counties (which is what they classify) are so large, and they primarily care that some city of over 50k people exists in it "somewhere". Some of those counties appear to be as large as or larger than some of the smaller states in the Northeast.
I'm sure there are reasons for the current classification. But there are certainly differences between I live on a hundred acres but I have decent shopping and culture relatively accessible and the nearest Walmart is 100 miles away.
As you suggest, a lot of what is classified as urban is not urban especially by the standards of someone who barely considers the South Bay as urban.
As you suggest, a lot of what is classified as urban is not urban especially by the standards of someone who barely considers the South Bay as urban.
Huge parts of the California desert are also classified as urban as the counties are so large, some of those places are extremely remote. Even the western central valley, other than i5 cutting through it is remote and sparsely inhabited.
[deleted]
Sounds like a suburb. The real inefficient structures.
In what suburb do you have only two neighbors within walking distance?
Does America have a concept of walking distance?
It's a country road. There are no sidewalks. So no. It's not something you walk along. (And hardly unique to the US.) The ESRI categorization is ex-urban. The basic point is that the census bureau categorizes areas as urban unless they're really rural, as in small and pretty far from an urban center.
And, by the way, if you're going to go with binary definitions, it's perfectly reasonable to say that within 30 minutes of a Walmart and within a couple of hours of a significant city is a reasonable benchmark versus truly back of beyond rural. Just just don't expect that to correspond to an urban environment as many people understand that to mean.
Certainly I can normally go into town for an evening of theater but most people would consider my house to be in an urban setting.
Certainly I can normally go into town for an evening of theater but most people would consider my house to be in an urban setting.
I don't think your definition of rural matches with people who live in rural areas. Maybe that's why conversations around Urban vs Rural never make sense.
Statistically, most "towns" are considered urban, regardless of where they are located.
Farms have gotten bigger, but family farms still dominate.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-structure-...
I guess you can argue that a large closely held company isn't a family farm, but it isn't what "corporate" is meant to conjure up either.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-structure-...
I guess you can argue that a large closely held company isn't a family farm, but it isn't what "corporate" is meant to conjure up either.
The majority of production comes from a small minority of farms with > $1MM ARR. Most are still family owned, but I would argue they are “what corporate is meant to conjure up” in the sense of the scale and methods driving the farming operation (just not the legal structure and governance.)
That’s why the overall number of farms and farmers has gone down - the little guy can’t make it work economically.
That’s why the overall number of farms and farmers has gone down - the little guy can’t make it work economically.
But they are the little guys, they just swallowed a few neighbors.
People complaining about corporate farming are talking about outside money coming in and taking the land.
People complaining about corporate farming are talking about outside money coming in and taking the land.
But only a slim slice of rural living is on farms, or are you talking about immigrant Latinos who are left out of the political picture?
The supermajority of people working American farms and meat shops are Latino immigrants.
The supermajority of people working American farms and meat shops are Latino immigrants.
This has also happened to manufacturing and coal mining to a certain extent. But, unlike agriculture, the demand for certain resources like coal is significantly less than it used to be, but people in the affected areas haven't been able to find work in other fields.
Because they're not willing to move.
It takes money to move, and it's unlikely they have the financial resources to handle living in an area with a significantly higher cost of living, unless the job pays very well. Given the fact that public school graduation rates are relatively low where they live, it's unlikely they would be able to secure one of those high paying jobs if they don't have at least a high school diploma or GED.
I think the reason they think it's subsidizing the rich enclaves is because they believe the rich enclaves aren't really working - they're just generating revenue from information advantage. We're just building systems of control and making money from it. Compare that to them cleaning out a grain cart or chopping up a 300 pound pig. What is work? And why did I make nearly $300 today vs them who will make $300 for that pig that they had to raise for 6 months?
> Compare that to them cleaning out a grain cart or chopping up a 300 pound pig.
Here is employment data on meat industry workers:
https://www.epi.org/blog/meat-and-poultry-worker-demographic...
Here is ag farming:
http://www.ncfh.org/facts-about-agricultural-workers.html
The people you are holding up as exemplars are not the people who hold the views you're discussing.
Here is employment data on meat industry workers:
https://www.epi.org/blog/meat-and-poultry-worker-demographic...
Here is ag farming:
http://www.ncfh.org/facts-about-agricultural-workers.html
The people you are holding up as exemplars are not the people who hold the views you're discussing.
[deleted]
Rent extraction in the information landscape?
You seem correct on that at least.
You seem correct on that at least.
> And why did I make nearly $300 today vs them who will make $300 for that pig that they had to raise for 6 months?
Effort has little to do with value. Utility also has little to do with value. See the diamond/water paradox for that second part.
There are certainly abuses in our society, rent seeking and outright fraud exist. But this childish rejection of capitalism that’s become trendy lately is tiresome. Capitalism is a technology that lifted billions out of poverty. Brilliant, earnest people (as well as some very evil people) tried alternatives in the last century and they failed horribly. No one has proposed plausible alternatives.
By all means we ought to couple capitalism in the private sector with a robust public sector, but to be against capitalism at this point is to be against human flourishing.
Effort has little to do with value. Utility also has little to do with value. See the diamond/water paradox for that second part.
There are certainly abuses in our society, rent seeking and outright fraud exist. But this childish rejection of capitalism that’s become trendy lately is tiresome. Capitalism is a technology that lifted billions out of poverty. Brilliant, earnest people (as well as some very evil people) tried alternatives in the last century and they failed horribly. No one has proposed plausible alternatives.
By all means we ought to couple capitalism in the private sector with a robust public sector, but to be against capitalism at this point is to be against human flourishing.
> become trendy lately
It’s not a new phenomenon, or unique to America or the west.
You can dozens of passages of the bible critical of the merchants and money makers, and many of them are arguments still echoed today.
It’s not a new phenomenon, or unique to America or the west.
You can dozens of passages of the bible critical of the merchants and money makers, and many of them are arguments still echoed today.
The need for many government programs (money spent on enforcing hollywood copyright) and the tax rules that create corporate wealth but cost other areas must be considered. The midwest could do away with many expensive budget items but are forced to pay a share.
The wealth of the nation could flip if heavy import duties were imposed forcing a manufacturing back inhouse.
Things are the way they are because the powerful like it.
The wealth of the nation could flip if heavy import duties were imposed forcing a manufacturing back inhouse.
Things are the way they are because the powerful like it.
> The wealth of the nation could flip if heavy import duties were imposed forcing a manufacturing back inhouse.
You mean the wealth of the nation would decrease?
You mean the wealth of the nation would decrease?
Any quality would decrease, and some people value that, so in that argument the wealth of the nation would increase.
Most all the income and productivity gains from globalization and go to the wealthy, so if they lost billions of dollars, it is true that the nation would be less “”wealthy””…
Most all the income and productivity gains from globalization and go to the wealthy, so if they lost billions of dollars, it is true that the nation would be less “”wealthy””…
> Most all the income and productivity gains from globalization and go to the wealthy, so if they lost billions of dollars, it is true that the nation would be less “”wealthy””…
That's a popular trope, but not really supported by any evidence. Take, for example, sanctuary cities...which can be seen as a form of illicit globalization. The popular trope suggests that undereducated and low income native American citizens would lose by attracting large quantities of low cost labor. But the exact opposite is true: native blue collar employment and wealth increases, welfare dependence and poverty decreases.
Perhaps the purveyors of the popular narrative should read up on David Ricardo. It's been 200 years since he died, and people still haven't caught on that more trade is a universal good...something economists have nearly universally accepted for literal centuries now.
That's a popular trope, but not really supported by any evidence. Take, for example, sanctuary cities...which can be seen as a form of illicit globalization. The popular trope suggests that undereducated and low income native American citizens would lose by attracting large quantities of low cost labor. But the exact opposite is true: native blue collar employment and wealth increases, welfare dependence and poverty decreases.
Perhaps the purveyors of the popular narrative should read up on David Ricardo. It's been 200 years since he died, and people still haven't caught on that more trade is a universal good...something economists have nearly universally accepted for literal centuries now.
> Most all the income and productivity gains from globalization and go to the wealthy
Income gains, perhaps. Productivity gains no. People buy foreign goods because they tend to be significantly cheaper. Capital in the US tends to be reinvested, so we would stagnate in innovation.
Income gains, perhaps. Productivity gains no. People buy foreign goods because they tend to be significantly cheaper. Capital in the US tends to be reinvested, so we would stagnate in innovation.
> The need for many government programs (money spent on enforcing hollywood copyright)
Okay, I'll bite: what government programs would you categorize as "money spent on enforcing Hollywood copyright"?
Okay, I'll bite: what government programs would you categorize as "money spent on enforcing Hollywood copyright"?
Often forgotten about "subsidization" of one group to another - which area is more likely to have higher participation in the military and armed forces, and deaths in foreign conflict zones?
The military doesn’t track deaths in combat zones by race. They do track participation: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
Per those numbers whites/blacks/Hispanics are more represented in the military than similar civilian occupations.
There is a higher percentage of Hispanic and black women in the military that might lower combat death numbers but there are a lot less high level black & Hispanic high level officers to make up for that.
It’s a long way of saying there isn’t good data on this but the US military is an extremely diverse group especially at the enlisted level.
Per those numbers whites/blacks/Hispanics are more represented in the military than similar civilian occupations.
There is a higher percentage of Hispanic and black women in the military that might lower combat death numbers but there are a lot less high level black & Hispanic high level officers to make up for that.
It’s a long way of saying there isn’t good data on this but the US military is an extremely diverse group especially at the enlisted level.
The diversity of the military respective to the civilian population is not uniform (no pun intended). There are significant racial differences between services, and branches within services (e.g. infantry versus a combat support branch like quartermaster). It's very difficult to find accurate public data on this subject, but "the military is extremely diverse" is not as clear cut a statement as many seem to think it is.
Sure. The document I listed shows a pretty outsized portion of the marines & Air Force are white.
But the fact remains the military is more diverse than the civilian work force. Which given no other data implies we can rule out arguments that military service is a particularly interesting form of sacrifice for the USA in racial dimensions.
But the fact remains the military is more diverse than the civilian work force. Which given no other data implies we can rule out arguments that military service is a particularly interesting form of sacrifice for the USA in racial dimensions.
Judging by the racial makeup of the military, probably inner city neighborhoods have a disproportionate amount of military participation.
I think it's worth considering whether or not rural vs urban is the best way to partition the argument. Cities tend to be very office/payroll dense, and rural areas more home dense. Some of the people who work in the city, and generate some of that revenue, may live in a rural area and consume services there.
As far as cost scaling, I kind of disagree. That calculation doesn't work well in the US, where a large portion of the people who work in the city commute. I come from a rural area and live in the bay area now, and I can say without a doubt I spend much more time on the road here. Same with emergency services, they were waaaayyyy better in my (very small and poor) hometown in terms of response times (or responding at all), and I can't see how that would cost more than running the same services here.
As far as cost scaling, I kind of disagree. That calculation doesn't work well in the US, where a large portion of the people who work in the city commute. I come from a rural area and live in the bay area now, and I can say without a doubt I spend much more time on the road here. Same with emergency services, they were waaaayyyy better in my (very small and poor) hometown in terms of response times (or responding at all), and I can't see how that would cost more than running the same services here.
>Same with emergency services, they were waaaayyyy better in my (very small and poor) hometown in terms of response times (or responding at all), and I can't see how that would cost more than running the same services here.
It matters on a per capita basis. What's the ratio of emergency service workers and their salaries to residents in your small and poort hometown compared to the bay area?
Also infrastructure (roads, running water, electricity) are much more expensive on a per capita basis than less dense areas
It matters on a per capita basis. What's the ratio of emergency service workers and their salaries to residents in your small and poort hometown compared to the bay area?
Also infrastructure (roads, running water, electricity) are much more expensive on a per capita basis than less dense areas
I'll agree with the latter point, but I think having less per-capita emergency services is a bug as opposed to a feature. I'd be willing to bet it's a matter of the land/buildings/employees necessary to run such services are far more expensive in areas where land/labor/everything is more expensive.
There are less absolute services available in rural areas and less services per capita and that lower level of services still costs more per capita to maintain, because for that one ambulance to serve ten people it had to travel 200 miles and took ten hours instead of having ten ambulances serve four people each in two hours.
If you look at only the most rural areas sure, but that isn't where most people outside of cities live.
I'm confused at how you go directly from "subsidizing" to money flow. By taking a low-paying job that makes middle-class life possible for you, aren't they foregoing income (and thus isn't this costing them)? Heck, push it to the limit—if a farmer's wages were $0, who's benefiting at the expense of whom here? Who's subsidizing who? If you never see the cash, vs. having it deposited and then withdrawn from your account, does that suddenly change the direction of the subsidy? Does the intrinsic/moral direction of a subsidy necessarily need to match the technical/legal definition?
I'm no expert in this, but as a layman, the question of who's subsidizing who is really only meaningful if you look at it from a human/moral standpoint rather than a purely legal/technical one. Otherwise you're using it to solve math problems, not human problems. And the latter seems like a really tough nut to crack to me. I don't know how to do it personally, so I don't know who's right. But I don't get how people talk about it as if it's some patently obvious thing you can figure out by looking at tax dollars or cash flow in the economy. It seems to me you'd need to assign some intrinsic moral value to all jobs so you can compare them against what they "should" cost or what they're "worth", and that is pretty darn difficult by itself, let alone the subsequent political controversy that would surely follow if such a thing was done.
I'm no expert in this, but as a layman, the question of who's subsidizing who is really only meaningful if you look at it from a human/moral standpoint rather than a purely legal/technical one. Otherwise you're using it to solve math problems, not human problems. And the latter seems like a really tough nut to crack to me. I don't know how to do it personally, so I don't know who's right. But I don't get how people talk about it as if it's some patently obvious thing you can figure out by looking at tax dollars or cash flow in the economy. It seems to me you'd need to assign some intrinsic moral value to all jobs so you can compare them against what they "should" cost or what they're "worth", and that is pretty darn difficult by itself, let alone the subsequent political controversy that would surely follow if such a thing was done.
Here's the point, and I'll lay my cards on the table as being more progressive in the political spectrum. Progressives, by and large, don't actually care that our tax money goes to help a lot of other people. We actually like it, in fact. I do think that I should help subsidize the costs of providing things like postal service and broadband internet to people who live in the middle of nowhere. The paradox is that conservatives and libertarians are the ones who get all worked up about their tax money being spent to help others when, in reality, they are more likely to be net beneficiaries.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, I see what you mean.
I drove through a few of the counties (eg. baker) mentioned in the article to visit a dog breeder, and the breeder had (nearly) her own highway exit. Complete with 2 overpasses. Must cost millions to build and maintain.
Her house was the only one visible for as far as you could see from that exit. All i could think about was how much better her life was for that exit and how all her total tax income forever could never ever come close to covering the costs society bore to build that exit.
I have always lived in very liberal, expensive, coastal cities and have always heard talking points about waste on welfare to cover poor inner-city americans (typically by rural/suburban conservatives), and all i could think was how backwards this was, and how many families could be fed by the cost of this one exit ramp.
Does this mean that society shouldn't build that ramp? I don't know because rural farmland obviously needs to access the rest of society (to ship food), and everyone sorta deserves to access the road system
Her house was the only one visible for as far as you could see from that exit. All i could think about was how much better her life was for that exit and how all her total tax income forever could never ever come close to covering the costs society bore to build that exit.
I have always lived in very liberal, expensive, coastal cities and have always heard talking points about waste on welfare to cover poor inner-city americans (typically by rural/suburban conservatives), and all i could think was how backwards this was, and how many families could be fed by the cost of this one exit ramp.
Does this mean that society shouldn't build that ramp? I don't know because rural farmland obviously needs to access the rest of society (to ship food), and everyone sorta deserves to access the road system
How many families are you going to feed with that extra million you saved now that the numerous farms you couldn’t see from the highway overpass can no longer ship food?
“I have always lived in very liberal, expensive, coastal cities” — please, please venture out of your safe bubble more, for the sake of all of us. Go tour a real farm, not the local micro-organic commune one nearby. See how they work.
“I have always lived in very liberal, expensive, coastal cities” — please, please venture out of your safe bubble more, for the sake of all of us. Go tour a real farm, not the local micro-organic commune one nearby. See how they work.
Obviously we still need to be able to ship food, i said that.
I don't live in those cities by choice (well, i chose jobs there... lots of tech in BOS/SF/etc).
I don't live in those cities by choice (well, i chose jobs there... lots of tech in BOS/SF/etc).
There's a false dichotomy, because everyone in the US is subsidising a super-caste of 0.1%ers.
They're the ones who pay PR companies, think tanks, and other influencers to create the illusion of consensus narratives by generating these talking points and making sure they're repeated by various apparently independent sources.
It makes it almost impossible to argue the merits of public subsidy funding on its own terms because the truth about costs and benefits is aggressively obscured.
They're the ones who pay PR companies, think tanks, and other influencers to create the illusion of consensus narratives by generating these talking points and making sure they're repeated by various apparently independent sources.
It makes it almost impossible to argue the merits of public subsidy funding on its own terms because the truth about costs and benefits is aggressively obscured.
> and the breeder had (nearly) her own highway exit
This is the key assumption on which your statements are based on. How do you know the state built it for her, rather than, she built her house next to the highway exit? I find it hard to believe that the state would build a highway exit specifically for a few normal individuals.
This is the key assumption on which your statements are based on. How do you know the state built it for her, rather than, she built her house next to the highway exit? I find it hard to believe that the state would build a highway exit specifically for a few normal individuals.
Obviously it is the other way around! She is just likely one of the only people who uses it since there is few others around
I wish i could edit still.
My point was not to somehow cast this woman in a bad light, or claim that this exit shouldn't exist.
My point was...
(in my bubble) I hear the argument from conservatives that social welfare (for inner-city people getting checks) is bad because it takes away from everyone else, and wastes money.
I just wanted to point out that there is a lot more money subsidizing the livelihood a lot more people than just the poor city people getting some sort of social welfare check.
My point was not to somehow cast this woman in a bad light, or claim that this exit shouldn't exist.
My point was...
(in my bubble) I hear the argument from conservatives that social welfare (for inner-city people getting checks) is bad because it takes away from everyone else, and wastes money.
I just wanted to point out that there is a lot more money subsidizing the livelihood a lot more people than just the poor city people getting some sort of social welfare check.
This appears to be a variation of the "who would build the roads" argument.
This particular movement, to its credit, seems to acknowledge this flow of money. It's about morality and control for them.
Oh, they talk a lot about the financial benefits — lower income taxes, looser land regulations — it’s just that the personal costs of a lower minimum wage, increased sales taxes, and less educational funding from the state aren’t going to fall on the people who are driving this.
I think it’s about something that they aren’t talking about openly.
These days its more a massive accumulation of debt and unfunded liabilities in suburbs and rural areas, but basically yeah
> A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has nothing to do with work ethic, it's just a hard fact that a lot of costs scale with square miles instead of with people (roads, emergency services), and that lower cost of living in the country leads to lower incomes which lead to lower tax revenue.
You've made up this narrative of what 'the other side' thinks.
I'll recast it for you.
* start narrative *
A lot of people in america seem to believe that their wages have stagnated while witnessing the wages of those living on the coast, who often disagree politically with them, rise stratospherically. To them it seems like the coastal elites do nothing, while they are quite literally breaking their backs to earn a paltry wage, that they then owe to the very coastal elites they feel are doing nothing.
It seems like they take the money, pay it in taxes, subsidize us and tell us we should grovel to them for it, while simultaneously opposing policies we feel would reduce the dependence. For example, they tell us we can't water our farms because of 'global warming', and instead should rely on their benevolence. But we don't want that benevolence.
* end narrative *
When you put it that way, you realize the 'hardworking real Americans' actually have a lot in common with far-left labor activists. And you'd be right. It would behoove everyone to have more compassion and charity towards their countrymen.
Anyway, there is a drastic shift in the Republican party that has gone completely unnoticed. Trump, everything from his personality to his tactics are more reminiscent of the pre-neo-liberal democrat party establishment than anything else. There is a real warming up of the republican base to social programs, government spending, and unions, so long as those institutions prioritize what they believe to be important issues. This is a far cry from the anti-spending, anti-union GOP of old.
You've made up this narrative of what 'the other side' thinks.
I'll recast it for you.
* start narrative *
A lot of people in america seem to believe that their wages have stagnated while witnessing the wages of those living on the coast, who often disagree politically with them, rise stratospherically. To them it seems like the coastal elites do nothing, while they are quite literally breaking their backs to earn a paltry wage, that they then owe to the very coastal elites they feel are doing nothing.
It seems like they take the money, pay it in taxes, subsidize us and tell us we should grovel to them for it, while simultaneously opposing policies we feel would reduce the dependence. For example, they tell us we can't water our farms because of 'global warming', and instead should rely on their benevolence. But we don't want that benevolence.
* end narrative *
When you put it that way, you realize the 'hardworking real Americans' actually have a lot in common with far-left labor activists. And you'd be right. It would behoove everyone to have more compassion and charity towards their countrymen.
Anyway, there is a drastic shift in the Republican party that has gone completely unnoticed. Trump, everything from his personality to his tactics are more reminiscent of the pre-neo-liberal democrat party establishment than anything else. There is a real warming up of the republican base to social programs, government spending, and unions, so long as those institutions prioritize what they believe to be important issues. This is a far cry from the anti-spending, anti-union GOP of old.
How does this viewpoint square up with the partisan divide over $15 minimum wage?
This one's not really about partisanship but rather about cost of living and purchasing power. $15/hr would buy you a lot more in a red state, where things are cheaper, than a blue state where things are more expensive. Honestly, a federally-mandated minimum wage does a disservice to the poorer areas of the country. Why would a company (and thus a tax payer) move to a place that's farther out, has fewer services, etc if they have to pay the same for labor. It's no wonder that these places end up being resource-extraction driven -- the labor pool, which naturally would be cheaper, has been given a price floor.
$15/hr min wage makes sense in Cali and other high cost states. It should be up to the states, and really ought to be set at the local level.
$15/hr min wage makes sense in Cali and other high cost states. It should be up to the states, and really ought to be set at the local level.
I don't see much difference between the "new Trumpian GOP" and "old GOP" in terms of concrete policy. Both are staunchly anti-immigration, both reject social programs aimed at helping those in poverty (including healthcare, such as the Affordable Care Act), both want to increase privatization of government services (such as education and the post office), both oppose unions (arguably one of the best ways to ensure a consistent increase in wages). And most importantly, both the new and old GOP define themselves mostly by what they aren't: all those smart-talkin', book-larnin' liberals on the coast.
Hot top: it isn't the coastal liberals who are causing stagnating wages. It's the anti-union, labor-exploiting wealthy who are the stars of the GOP.
Hot top: it isn't the coastal liberals who are causing stagnating wages. It's the anti-union, labor-exploiting wealthy who are the stars of the GOP.
> Both are staunchly anti-immigration
Anti-immigration is a new GOP sentiment. Traditional small-government libertarianism/conservatism is pro-immigration. Look at Bush and Reagan. Anti-immigration is more in line with the labor movements, like the one run by Cesar Chavez.
> both reject social programs aimed at helping those in poverty (including healthcare, such as the Affordable Care Act
Not true at all. Many GOP members I know would be pro-gov't healthcare if we had our borders under control. The main difference I see between the dems and GOP in this regard is nationalism.
> both oppose unions
Not really. Trump's policies are incredibly popular among union members even if not popular with union leadership. Those two groups have different interests.
> It's the anti-union, labor-exploiting wealthy who are the stars of the GOP.
Who no one in the GOP likes anymore. Honestly, go read patriots.win or something, they'll tell you exactly what they think of the wealthy GOP.
Anti-immigration is a new GOP sentiment. Traditional small-government libertarianism/conservatism is pro-immigration. Look at Bush and Reagan. Anti-immigration is more in line with the labor movements, like the one run by Cesar Chavez.
> both reject social programs aimed at helping those in poverty (including healthcare, such as the Affordable Care Act
Not true at all. Many GOP members I know would be pro-gov't healthcare if we had our borders under control. The main difference I see between the dems and GOP in this regard is nationalism.
> both oppose unions
Not really. Trump's policies are incredibly popular among union members even if not popular with union leadership. Those two groups have different interests.
> It's the anti-union, labor-exploiting wealthy who are the stars of the GOP.
Who no one in the GOP likes anymore. Honestly, go read patriots.win or something, they'll tell you exactly what they think of the wealthy GOP.
The whole "who's subsidizing who" is a bullshit talking point for both sides.
The net inflows/outflows from any given state aren't that big on a per capita basis. They're small enough that anyone who either wants to not have to be told what to do by big city liberals or doesn't want to be held back by rural conservatives that would consider it a small price to pay for freedom.
The net inflows/outflows from any given state aren't that big on a per capita basis. They're small enough that anyone who either wants to not have to be told what to do by big city liberals or doesn't want to be held back by rural conservatives that would consider it a small price to pay for freedom.
Those people in the middle of the country believe that if they all quit their jobs and demanded a government-given wage, that the country would starve to death.
If all of the people at facebook, google, and twitter quit their jobs, however, all that would really happen would be that the country would get a bit more peaceful.
You're talking about how much is taken in taxes. These people are talking about how much is given in life.
If all of the people at facebook, google, and twitter quit their jobs, however, all that would really happen would be that the country would get a bit more peaceful.
You're talking about how much is taken in taxes. These people are talking about how much is given in life.
Sounds like someone's been watching a bit too much Fox Propaganda.
Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. Who do you think pays for those subsidies, and who pays for the tariffs? Yeah, the "coastal elites" that you've been trained to hate.
In farmers stopped benefiting from the largess of the coast, _they_ would starve to death, and everyone else would have cheaper food.
Farms are already subsidized by the government. Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers. Who do you think pays for those subsidies, and who pays for the tariffs? Yeah, the "coastal elites" that you've been trained to hate.
In farmers stopped benefiting from the largess of the coast, _they_ would starve to death, and everyone else would have cheaper food.
Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food.
Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.
Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.
By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor?
Or are we talking about those who Own things?
Or are we talking about those who Own things?
Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.
hackyhacky(2)
> Imports are already subject to tariffs precisely to protect farmers.
I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.
I think you got these backwards. Subsidies are provided because other countries imposes tariffs on US farm products.
Is this suggesting we could actually live without Facebook, Google and Twitter.
Many of us did that for many years of our lives. At the time, I never anticipated with the internet and eventually the web is that people who had never experienced life without it could so easily be caused to lose sight of what is possible, in favor of the mess we have today. The biggest impediment I see to positive change is that younger generations are being indoctrinated into a world where "tech" companies, intermediaries supported by advertising, are perceived as an essential part of using the internet. This is of course patently false. But these companies are ultimately surveilling and controlling the dialogue. After all, internet subscribers use these "tech" company intermediaries to communicate.
Before advertising took over the internet, the inter-network's user base was relatively small. Folks who used the internet recreationally during that time were likely to be technically minded people who enjoyed computers, the type of people many of which who are working with advertising supported "tech" companies today. Few of them are going to portray an advertising-free internet as a viable option. Their livelihoods today depend on advertising. Supporting Big Tech is their "work".
Anyway, it is good to see at least one commenter can contemplate a better course for the future.
It is possible to communicate and share over the internet without the use of Big Tech. However, as long as advertising-supprted "tech" companies sit between users, operating as intermediaries, that truth will keep getting buried deeper with every new generation.
Many of us did that for many years of our lives. At the time, I never anticipated with the internet and eventually the web is that people who had never experienced life without it could so easily be caused to lose sight of what is possible, in favor of the mess we have today. The biggest impediment I see to positive change is that younger generations are being indoctrinated into a world where "tech" companies, intermediaries supported by advertising, are perceived as an essential part of using the internet. This is of course patently false. But these companies are ultimately surveilling and controlling the dialogue. After all, internet subscribers use these "tech" company intermediaries to communicate.
Before advertising took over the internet, the inter-network's user base was relatively small. Folks who used the internet recreationally during that time were likely to be technically minded people who enjoyed computers, the type of people many of which who are working with advertising supported "tech" companies today. Few of them are going to portray an advertising-free internet as a viable option. Their livelihoods today depend on advertising. Supporting Big Tech is their "work".
Anyway, it is good to see at least one commenter can contemplate a better course for the future.
It is possible to communicate and share over the internet without the use of Big Tech. However, as long as advertising-supprted "tech" companies sit between users, operating as intermediaries, that truth will keep getting buried deeper with every new generation.
Are you talking about immigrant Latinos, who constitute the supermajority of the farm and meat production labor you're talking about? Yes, I can totally see how they feel left out of the American political process; sometimes they are even called "illegals"!
And the families who own farms capture the lion's share of the fruits of labor!
And the families who own farms capture the lion's share of the fruits of labor!
You should make friends with some of those immigrant Latinos and ask them which is more important: a stable, reliable food supply, or faster file retrieval for twitter videos.
To take this view you've shared charitably, what would "Those people in the middle of the country" who keep up from starving want in order to be satisfied with ... life? America? whatever bothers them about the current arrangement?
To be clear: these aren't my views. I live on the Coast, and probably work at the same company some of you guys work at. I just also happen to have close friends who live outside of the bubble we all inhabit.
They think that they want to be left alone. They don't want what they perceive as coastal values forced upon their kids in school.
They think that they want to be left alone. They don't want what they perceive as coastal values forced upon their kids in school.
What values would those be?
Classics liberal here, recently moved out of west coast city to west coast rural area in large part due to critical race theory and fairly radical trans activism. Couldn’t stomache the current school curriculum around both topics.
If me and my coworkers stopped working, significant parts of the countries education system and essential services would stop working. I make 16 dollars an hour.
Because thats the divide? Silicon Valley vs family farms. Give me a break...
[deleted]
Easy choice. I'd pick food, lumber, minerals, manufacturing and energy every time over iFart apps, collateralized debt instruments, oxycontin and Disney movies.
And the idea that us smart people should just outsource all that physical labor stuff to 3rd-world mouth breathers may work for the moment, but just wait until there is a crisis or war.
And the idea that us smart people should just outsource all that physical labor stuff to 3rd-world mouth breathers may work for the moment, but just wait until there is a crisis or war.
> A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves.
By far the most heavily subsidized, most expensive, poorest and least educated people in the United States are the poor living in urban zones. It's not even remotely a close comparison in terms of numbers.
You can see it in the crime statistics, you can see it in the drop-out rates, you can see it in the homelessness rates. And so on.
You can also see it in the cost of incarcerating violent criminals (not drug offenders, which are a shrinking, smaller share of the incarcerated population), which urban zones produce radically more of to go with the extreme poverty found in US cities. The urban zones - which are hyper dangerous in the US - produce the overwhelming share of all murder in the country. Who pays for the very expensive policing necessary to keep terrorist groups from burning Portland to the ground? That isn't going on in rural Oregon. Who pays for the very expensive policing to try to control the extreme murder rates in Baltimore or Chicago? That isn't going on in rural Maryland or Illinois; the per capita murder rates in Baltimore are 50x to 100x higher than in rural Maryland. These things are all subsidized by the urban high income brackets, and it's a huge cost.
And it's also true that the urban zones have far higher incomes, so they pay higher taxes and push more money into the welfare system accordingly. They subsidize both their local urban poor and the rural poor outside the cities.
The bottom 10% in Los Angeles represent a de facto third world standard of living and it's a very large population. Those shocking, unbelievable homeless camps in Los Angeles look like something out of a sci-fi dystopian movie. And that's just a very small fraction, a small visual representation, of the extreme poverty in cities like Los Angeles or Chicago.
By far the most heavily subsidized, most expensive, poorest and least educated people in the United States are the poor living in urban zones. It's not even remotely a close comparison in terms of numbers.
You can see it in the crime statistics, you can see it in the drop-out rates, you can see it in the homelessness rates. And so on.
You can also see it in the cost of incarcerating violent criminals (not drug offenders, which are a shrinking, smaller share of the incarcerated population), which urban zones produce radically more of to go with the extreme poverty found in US cities. The urban zones - which are hyper dangerous in the US - produce the overwhelming share of all murder in the country. Who pays for the very expensive policing necessary to keep terrorist groups from burning Portland to the ground? That isn't going on in rural Oregon. Who pays for the very expensive policing to try to control the extreme murder rates in Baltimore or Chicago? That isn't going on in rural Maryland or Illinois; the per capita murder rates in Baltimore are 50x to 100x higher than in rural Maryland. These things are all subsidized by the urban high income brackets, and it's a huge cost.
And it's also true that the urban zones have far higher incomes, so they pay higher taxes and push more money into the welfare system accordingly. They subsidize both their local urban poor and the rural poor outside the cities.
The bottom 10% in Los Angeles represent a de facto third world standard of living and it's a very large population. Those shocking, unbelievable homeless camps in Los Angeles look like something out of a sci-fi dystopian movie. And that's just a very small fraction, a small visual representation, of the extreme poverty in cities like Los Angeles or Chicago.
Rural areas are pretty similar.
Just fewer people. Trailer parks instead of projects. Same crime, same misery.
The stuff that shocks the soul is a small fraction of the struggle and misery.
Just fewer people. Trailer parks instead of projects. Same crime, same misery.
The stuff that shocks the soul is a small fraction of the struggle and misery.
> violent criminals [...] which urban zones produce radically more of
That's just not true. A quick google pulls up this visualization from 2017: https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-201...
And you'll note that... there's basically no correlation with urbanity at all. Highly urban states like CT are very peaceful, but so is Idaho (but not Montana, which is pretty bad). Two of the worst states are NM and Alaska, which have near zero urban population!
There may be some rules to glean from the data, but the one you picked is not it.
That's just not true. A quick google pulls up this visualization from 2017: https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-201...
And you'll note that... there's basically no correlation with urbanity at all. Highly urban states like CT are very peaceful, but so is Idaho (but not Montana, which is pretty bad). Two of the worst states are NM and Alaska, which have near zero urban population!
There may be some rules to glean from the data, but the one you picked is not it.
Your analysis lumps all violence equally, and suffers greatly from the variance inherent in reporting of “light” violent the crime.
Homicides are much better to look at. There is very little difference between Alaska and New Orleans in their reporting of homicides. And when you judge rural vs urban by homicide rate, urban is much larger. Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. This is particularly shocking because small sample sizes of small counties should make it so every single member of the top 10 is rural, but it’s not.
https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-...
Homicides are much better to look at. There is very little difference between Alaska and New Orleans in their reporting of homicides. And when you judge rural vs urban by homicide rate, urban is much larger. Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. This is particularly shocking because small sample sizes of small counties should make it so every single member of the top 10 is rural, but it’s not.
https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-...
> Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas.
Easiest way to tell someone is lying with statistics is when they try to make a point by counting outliers at the edge of the distribution.
I don't see how what you're saying follows at all. It seems just as likely that broad exurban counties are more economically inclusive while urban counties tend to cluster very-poor high crime areas more densely while leaving the safer adjoining suburbs (very much part of the "urban" population under discussion here) in different buckets.
Are "cities" killing more people per capita or not? Seems like that's a simple matter of adding up some numbers, so your attempt to spin here seems a little suspect. Again, my read is that there is almost no correlation at all.
Easiest way to tell someone is lying with statistics is when they try to make a point by counting outliers at the edge of the distribution.
I don't see how what you're saying follows at all. It seems just as likely that broad exurban counties are more economically inclusive while urban counties tend to cluster very-poor high crime areas more densely while leaving the safer adjoining suburbs (very much part of the "urban" population under discussion here) in different buckets.
Are "cities" killing more people per capita or not? Seems like that's a simple matter of adding up some numbers, so your attempt to spin here seems a little suspect. Again, my read is that there is almost no correlation at all.
I hear it’s healthy to ignore data that contradicts your prejudices because you’re “suspicious.” /s
If you want to investigate it more, then that actually would be healthy. But instead you look at some colors on a map delineated by state lines, and think that’s convincing evidence. It’s clear you’re only interested in validating your pre-existing beliefs when you jump with such energy into flimsy data that corroborates your prejudices while dismissing other analyses out of “suspicion” when they contradict you.
If you want to investigate it more, then that actually would be healthy. But instead you look at some colors on a map delineated by state lines, and think that’s convincing evidence. It’s clear you’re only interested in validating your pre-existing beliefs when you jump with such energy into flimsy data that corroborates your prejudices while dismissing other analyses out of “suspicion” when they contradict you.
[citation required]
Even the worst parts of LA are miles ahead of the poor rural suburbs. There is just more visibility in LA due to the concentration of people.
In reality, the facts don't back up anything you said. :/
In reality, the facts don't back up anything you said. :/
Here is the website for one of the groups pushing for this: https://www.greateridaho.org/
Taxes are just one part of this. They list these other issues of concern:
> 1. American Values: Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms because normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon. Not in Idaho. Addicts will be attracted to Oregon from all over the world by the 2020 drug decriminalization law.
> 2. Law and Order: Oregon refuses to protect citizens from criminals, rioters, wildfire arsonists, illegals, and the homeless, but then infringes your right to defend your family with firearms. Idaho enforces the law.
> 3. Low Tax: Idaho is the state with the 8th smallest tax burden, and Oregon ranks 33rd, according to https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2019 . Combining all taxes together, including sales tax, the average Idahoan pays $1722 less in taxes per year than the average Oregonian. That’s averaging together every adult or child, employed, retired or unemployed. And cost of living is 39% higher in Oregon than in Idaho. Oregon tax rates will continue to go up due to a lack of willingness to control spending.
> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
> 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.
> 6. Representation: The ruling party in the Oregon Legislature doesn’t have a single representative from a rural district or from eastern or southern Oregon, except one Ashland representative. But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho, where our concerns and needs would be heard.
Taxes are just one part of this. They list these other issues of concern:
> 1. American Values: Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms because normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon. Not in Idaho. Addicts will be attracted to Oregon from all over the world by the 2020 drug decriminalization law.
> 2. Law and Order: Oregon refuses to protect citizens from criminals, rioters, wildfire arsonists, illegals, and the homeless, but then infringes your right to defend your family with firearms. Idaho enforces the law.
> 3. Low Tax: Idaho is the state with the 8th smallest tax burden, and Oregon ranks 33rd, according to https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2019 . Combining all taxes together, including sales tax, the average Idahoan pays $1722 less in taxes per year than the average Oregonian. That’s averaging together every adult or child, employed, retired or unemployed. And cost of living is 39% higher in Oregon than in Idaho. Oregon tax rates will continue to go up due to a lack of willingness to control spending.
> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
> 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.
> 6. Representation: The ruling party in the Oregon Legislature doesn’t have a single representative from a rural district or from eastern or southern Oregon, except one Ashland representative. But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho, where our concerns and needs would be heard.
> Oregon will continue to violate more and more American values and American freedoms
Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?
> > 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
They do realize that Idaho and Oregon have different climates and different precipitation amounts, right? The Western Rockies and Eastern Cascades are different biomes.
> > 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.
Is there any data that backs this up? This feels like a pipe dream to me that's totally unfounded.
Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?
> > 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
They do realize that Idaho and Oregon have different climates and different precipitation amounts, right? The Western Rockies and Eastern Cascades are different biomes.
> > 5. Thriving Economy: Idaho has less regulation than any other state, low unemployment, and would allow our rural industries to revive and employ us again.
Is there any data that backs this up? This feels like a pipe dream to me that's totally unfounded.
> Haha, what? If Oregon is doing stuff, it's definitionally an American value and American Freedom, right? Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?
Have you watched Fox News recently? They're very clear: "American" refers to their (conservative, older, rural) viewers; "anti-American" refers to everyone else. People believe this.
Have you watched Fox News recently? They're very clear: "American" refers to their (conservative, older, rural) viewers; "anti-American" refers to everyone else. People believe this.
I know. I just... I keep hoping that by pointing out the obvious silliness of the phrase "American Values" that maybe, someone somewhere will read it and be like, "Huh, you know, maybe what I meant to say was, 'My values'...."
One interesting discussion point about American values it’s about whether it should be determined by the number of humans inside of American borders, or if it is just a birthright.
I support using satellite imagery to get a day by day census count to include tourists and everyone inside of America as part of the decision making and voting process to improve infrastructure at least.
I support using satellite imagery to get a day by day census count to include tourists and everyone inside of America as part of the decision making and voting process to improve infrastructure at least.
Why should non-citizens have a voice in how our country is ran?
> violate more and more American values and American freedoms
By this the folks in eastern Oregon are criticizing Democratic Gov. Brown for her approach to the pandemic: you know, normal things like closing restaurants and churches, requiring masks indoors, etc.
By this the folks in eastern Oregon are criticizing Democratic Gov. Brown for her approach to the pandemic: you know, normal things like closing restaurants and churches, requiring masks indoors, etc.
Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow.
Because right now they are just saying their opponents are "un-American" which means whatever it needs to mean without actually saying anything of substance.
Because right now they are just saying their opponents are "un-American" which means whatever it needs to mean without actually saying anything of substance.
They put it that way on purpose, it's coded language, full of dog whistles. They don't say the quiet part out loud.
It's amazing how some folk deny what the intention is - I guess the terms provide plausible deniability. Sometimes it's "real Americans" or "middle-class Americans", or "people in the heartland" - we all know which demography you're referring to (and everyone else you're excluding).
Also "hard-working folks", "taxpayers", and "patriots"
> Ok, so say that. Or connect them to "American Values" concretely somehow.
The 1st amendment granting freedom to assemble? Free exercise of religion? The supreme court agreed when it struck down New York's and California's bans on religious gatherings, which also affected Oregon. So broadly speaking, these are correct by the highest authority on 'American'.
Perhaps this doesn't come to mind when you hear 'American values', but why would these counties care? You are almost certainly not their intended audience.
The 1st amendment granting freedom to assemble? Free exercise of religion? The supreme court agreed when it struck down New York's and California's bans on religious gatherings, which also affected Oregon. So broadly speaking, these are correct by the highest authority on 'American'.
Perhaps this doesn't come to mind when you hear 'American values', but why would these counties care? You are almost certainly not their intended audience.
1. The first amendment gives "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's not the right of people to gather together wherever they want, whenever they want. Note the dependent clause. It's saying the people can join organizations like the CPUSA, People For the American Way, American Family Association, or even movements like BLM or antifa, and the government is not permitted to constrain that.
2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the government can't say which religions are OK and which aren't, or that there's an official religion of the US. It says nothing about people being able to go to church on Sunday or temples on Saturday
2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the government can't say which religions are OK and which aren't, or that there's an official religion of the US. It says nothing about people being able to go to church on Sunday or temples on Saturday
> Who gets to decide what an "American *" is?
Their intended audience.
Keep in mind, this is written to appeal to someone who is already likely to agree that Oregon is handling these topics poorly.
Their intended audience.
Keep in mind, this is written to appeal to someone who is already likely to agree that Oregon is handling these topics poorly.
I think I'm mostly just expressing frustration that this actually works. That anyone looks at that phrasing and says, "Yes, this makes sense."
Unfortunately logical fallacies are often used in much of political messaging, which far precedes the current climate.
https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/logical-fallacies...
https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/logical-fallacies...
I certainly agree with you there. As the other person mentions though, it didn't appear any time recently and it's not going to go away any time soon. Most people don't think about things logically or critically. See also: ads work.
> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
If that's true then they'd be better off moving to Idaho, right? Given the vast area involved it's difficult to imagine that in a span of even a decade or more that the forests would be transformed so as to prevent wildfires. Staying where they are would only leave them in harms way for quite some years.
If that's true then they'd be better off moving to Idaho, right? Given the vast area involved it's difficult to imagine that in a span of even a decade or more that the forests would be transformed so as to prevent wildfires. Staying where they are would only leave them in harms way for quite some years.
>American Values ... normal rural Americans are outnumbered in Oregon
What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?
> 3. Low Tax
The counties involved have median household incomes of 30-35K, making their tax burden $600-1100 total, a far cry from the average quoted, which is skewed right strongly by outliers (1%), which tend to be outside of the counties in this idea.
> 5. Thriving Economy ... low unemployment
Economy is a second order effect. How does having a low unemployment affect the number of jobs in the actual areas? Cause and effect are reversed in this claim.
> 6. Representation: ... But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho
I think the word is "governing", this is a little confused about the difference.
What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?
> 3. Low Tax
The counties involved have median household incomes of 30-35K, making their tax burden $600-1100 total, a far cry from the average quoted, which is skewed right strongly by outliers (1%), which tend to be outside of the counties in this idea.
> 5. Thriving Economy ... low unemployment
Economy is a second order effect. How does having a low unemployment affect the number of jobs in the actual areas? Cause and effect are reversed in this claim.
> 6. Representation: ... But our reps would be in the ruling party in Idaho
I think the word is "governing", this is a little confused about the difference.
> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?
America has been here for a long time. It's fair to say that values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria.
Note that the value that people who come to America and join the national experiment become American is one of those values! That's unusual, and needs to be pointed out: values aren't more American because they're held by old American stock, causality flows in the other direction.
Not everything is a pure popularity contest. 51% of people supporting strict gun control (for the sake of argument) doesn't make that position more American, it just means more Americans happen to hold to it. That the Constitution makes altering its own text a matter of supermajority, both in passing and ratification, supports the idea that what it is to be American is not intended to simply shift in the winds on the strength of a bare majority.
That all said, the bottom line is that these five counties feel that their values are better represented by the state government of Idaho than by that of Oregon. Federalism is one of those old American values I was droning on about earlier; I don't see why they shouldn't get the chance to secede from a state which isn't serving their needs, and join one which they think would.
America has been here for a long time. It's fair to say that values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria.
Note that the value that people who come to America and join the national experiment become American is one of those values! That's unusual, and needs to be pointed out: values aren't more American because they're held by old American stock, causality flows in the other direction.
Not everything is a pure popularity contest. 51% of people supporting strict gun control (for the sake of argument) doesn't make that position more American, it just means more Americans happen to hold to it. That the Constitution makes altering its own text a matter of supermajority, both in passing and ratification, supports the idea that what it is to be American is not intended to simply shift in the winds on the strength of a bare majority.
That all said, the bottom line is that these five counties feel that their values are better represented by the state government of Idaho than by that of Oregon. Federalism is one of those old American values I was droning on about earlier; I don't see why they shouldn't get the chance to secede from a state which isn't serving their needs, and join one which they think would.
> values which are of long standing, still held by a significant fraction of the population, and them disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations, are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria
So, in an Oregon context, this would mean the values of the Chinook peoples?
So, in an Oregon context, this would mean the values of the Chinook peoples?
Not really, no.
For starters, we're talking about Eastern Oregon, so if you wanted to throw a gotcha, you should have gone for the Paiute.
America is a nation, and it took its time getting to Oregon. The Chinook were never particularly numerous, nor influential on the values of that nation. That's just a fact.
The Iroquois League was more influential, the Founding Fathers were very impressed with their system of governance, though how much of that made it into the Constitution is a matter of debate. Painting with a broad brush, centuries of contact with the native peoples of this continent has certainly left its mark. The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.
The Native American people are both their own nations and a part of the American nation. Speaking as one American, I'm inclined to value their contributions, but it seems a bit presumptuous for me to say that Apache or Navajo values are American values.
To continue down the road you've set us upon, the American descendants of slavery went unheard for many years, but starting no later than Frederick Douglass became a key part of shaping the ethos and values of the nation. They insisted that "all men are created equal" meant all men, and put an end to white supremacy, which was certainly an American value and just as surely is no longer such.
For starters, we're talking about Eastern Oregon, so if you wanted to throw a gotcha, you should have gone for the Paiute.
America is a nation, and it took its time getting to Oregon. The Chinook were never particularly numerous, nor influential on the values of that nation. That's just a fact.
The Iroquois League was more influential, the Founding Fathers were very impressed with their system of governance, though how much of that made it into the Constitution is a matter of debate. Painting with a broad brush, centuries of contact with the native peoples of this continent has certainly left its mark. The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.
The Native American people are both their own nations and a part of the American nation. Speaking as one American, I'm inclined to value their contributions, but it seems a bit presumptuous for me to say that Apache or Navajo values are American values.
To continue down the road you've set us upon, the American descendants of slavery went unheard for many years, but starting no later than Frederick Douglass became a key part of shaping the ethos and values of the nation. They insisted that "all men are created equal" meant all men, and put an end to white supremacy, which was certainly an American value and just as surely is no longer such.
Well, then I'm confused.
You started off saying that it makes sense for these people to say that the government of Idaho upholds American values more than the government of Oregon, because values' 'Americanness' isn't determined by the majority, but rather by appeal to ancestry and tradition.
But apparently the Chinook (or, if you wish, the Paiute), who I would say have superior claim on that front, don't get to wield the mystical power of American Values because they were never numerous, nor influential.
But surely the population of Idaho and eastern Oregon is also not particularly numerous, nor influential.
And the population of Western Oregon also, surely, has some claim to be a "significant fraction of the population", "disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations", so surely that means their values are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria?
So I guess I just don't know what gives these people of Eastern Oregon more of a claim to determine whether Idaho or Oregon is 'more aligned' with American Values. Is it because their ancestors have been Americans since the early days of the old West, and they embody the pioneer spirit of the Oregon Territory? So their values are more American.
But it's maybe worth noting that in 1844, while Frederick Douglass was first publishing his slave story, Oregon passed a law that made it illegal for him, or any other freed slave, to set foot in the state. It remained part of the state's constitution through its admission to the US, and long after the 14th amendment made it unconstitutional.
In 1926, thirty years after Frederick Douglass died, a ballot measure to repeal it was finally passed. But 32% of voters voted against it.
Maybe if white supremacy is 'surely' no longer an American value, we shouldn't be looking to the traditional values of Oregonians as a guiding light. They have a bit of a history of being slow to catch on to changes in what are 'surely' American values.
You started off saying that it makes sense for these people to say that the government of Idaho upholds American values more than the government of Oregon, because values' 'Americanness' isn't determined by the majority, but rather by appeal to ancestry and tradition.
But apparently the Chinook (or, if you wish, the Paiute), who I would say have superior claim on that front, don't get to wield the mystical power of American Values because they were never numerous, nor influential.
But surely the population of Idaho and eastern Oregon is also not particularly numerous, nor influential.
And the population of Western Oregon also, surely, has some claim to be a "significant fraction of the population", "disproportionately descended from ancestors who have been American for many generations", so surely that means their values are more American values than ones which fail one or more of these criteria?
So I guess I just don't know what gives these people of Eastern Oregon more of a claim to determine whether Idaho or Oregon is 'more aligned' with American Values. Is it because their ancestors have been Americans since the early days of the old West, and they embody the pioneer spirit of the Oregon Territory? So their values are more American.
But it's maybe worth noting that in 1844, while Frederick Douglass was first publishing his slave story, Oregon passed a law that made it illegal for him, or any other freed slave, to set foot in the state. It remained part of the state's constitution through its admission to the US, and long after the 14th amendment made it unconstitutional.
In 1926, thirty years after Frederick Douglass died, a ballot measure to repeal it was finally passed. But 32% of voters voted against it.
Maybe if white supremacy is 'surely' no longer an American value, we shouldn't be looking to the traditional values of Oregonians as a guiding light. They have a bit of a history of being slow to catch on to changes in what are 'surely' American values.
> The Western ethos of self-reliance and freedom owes a lot to them.
So the notion of "self-reliance and freedom" that makes Western ideologies suggests you're referring not to Native Americans but "pioneers"--the people who settled the Western lands without government help. Except, I guess, for the help it provided by clearing the land of its prior inhabitants who somehow didn't know the land wasn't theirs anymore. And providing basic infrastructure like schooling (funded from sales from Township 16). And funding the construction of railroads so that homesteaders could acquire the goods they couldn't make themselves and sell their excess produce to US markets.
So the notion of "self-reliance and freedom" that makes Western ideologies suggests you're referring not to Native Americans but "pioneers"--the people who settled the Western lands without government help. Except, I guess, for the help it provided by clearing the land of its prior inhabitants who somehow didn't know the land wasn't theirs anymore. And providing basic infrastructure like schooling (funded from sales from Township 16). And funding the construction of railroads so that homesteaders could acquire the goods they couldn't make themselves and sell their excess produce to US markets.
Don't be silly, we're not talking about those values.
[deleted]
> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?
There are two conflicting meanings of the word 'American' that is causing your confusion. American can refer to an individual who is American. It can also refer to things associated with the government currently controlling the land known as the United States of America. The land of the USA has -- in its time -- been held by several government. Firstly there is the current one. Then there is the previous one, the confederated states of America. Some parts of the USA have at times been held by smaller governments, for example, the Southern confederacy (not to be confused with the USA under the articles of confederation).
Anyway, there are American values -- i.e., those held by individuals in America -- and then there are American values -- i.e., those in line with the constitution of the United States of America.
The Oregonians clearly are using the second meaning. They believe that the State of Oregon has failed to uphold values inherent to the Constitution of the United States of America. For example, if tomorrow, 98% of Oregonians decided Monarchy were the best form of government, in this usage, we can unequivocally say that that is not American, because monarchy is fundamentally at odds with the constitution. Thus, even if -- in my hypothetical -- monarchy were an American value in the individual sense, it would not be in the second usage.
As another unrelated example illustrating the difference in the usages, the majority of American Catholics believe contraceptives are okay. If you ask 'what is the opinion of the church on contraception', there are two correct answers. One can say 'Catholics believe contraception is okay' because most Catholics (in this country at least) agree. One can equally say 'Catholics believe contraception is not okay' because the institution of the Catholic church in this country has -- through official channels -- said it's not.
There are two conflicting meanings of the word 'American' that is causing your confusion. American can refer to an individual who is American. It can also refer to things associated with the government currently controlling the land known as the United States of America. The land of the USA has -- in its time -- been held by several government. Firstly there is the current one. Then there is the previous one, the confederated states of America. Some parts of the USA have at times been held by smaller governments, for example, the Southern confederacy (not to be confused with the USA under the articles of confederation).
Anyway, there are American values -- i.e., those held by individuals in America -- and then there are American values -- i.e., those in line with the constitution of the United States of America.
The Oregonians clearly are using the second meaning. They believe that the State of Oregon has failed to uphold values inherent to the Constitution of the United States of America. For example, if tomorrow, 98% of Oregonians decided Monarchy were the best form of government, in this usage, we can unequivocally say that that is not American, because monarchy is fundamentally at odds with the constitution. Thus, even if -- in my hypothetical -- monarchy were an American value in the individual sense, it would not be in the second usage.
As another unrelated example illustrating the difference in the usages, the majority of American Catholics believe contraceptives are okay. If you ask 'what is the opinion of the church on contraception', there are two correct answers. One can say 'Catholics believe contraception is okay' because most Catholics (in this country at least) agree. One can equally say 'Catholics believe contraception is not okay' because the institution of the Catholic church in this country has -- through official channels -- said it's not.
> What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?
There's a very present "last bastion" framing in most of the right-wing media I track. It'll depend on exactly what the foundational beliefs of the community are that drive this framing -- John Birch society derivative folks arrive here via a different path than white supremacist survivalists and them a different path than evangelical fundamentalist Christians -- but it's common enough. It goes hand in hand with the notion that the US has fallen from the ideal set forth by the Founders and that only your in-group really gets it and has a hope of restoring it.
Alex Jones is a good, mainstream-ish example. Dude's a Bircher and has spent decades coaching his audience to believe that Globalists are in league with Satan and intend to destroy humanity, if only they could get the US out of the way. Satan/The Globalists are _this_ close to succeeding. Once they do, Real American Values will disappear from the world, ushering in the post-human era. Jones preaches survivalism (sorta, feeding your neighbors to your daughters will give your daughters prion disease) to his audience and I hope you see how the two strains of thought would fester into a framing like you've called out.
There's a very present "last bastion" framing in most of the right-wing media I track. It'll depend on exactly what the foundational beliefs of the community are that drive this framing -- John Birch society derivative folks arrive here via a different path than white supremacist survivalists and them a different path than evangelical fundamentalist Christians -- but it's common enough. It goes hand in hand with the notion that the US has fallen from the ideal set forth by the Founders and that only your in-group really gets it and has a hope of restoring it.
Alex Jones is a good, mainstream-ish example. Dude's a Bircher and has spent decades coaching his audience to believe that Globalists are in league with Satan and intend to destroy humanity, if only they could get the US out of the way. Satan/The Globalists are _this_ close to succeeding. Once they do, Real American Values will disappear from the world, ushering in the post-human era. Jones preaches survivalism (sorta, feeding your neighbors to your daughters will give your daughters prion disease) to his audience and I hope you see how the two strains of thought would fester into a framing like you've called out.
Thanks - as a non-American living there, this is pretty helpful to further my understanding.
I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.
I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.
“Evil Geniuses: the unmasking of America” was pretty good at tracking this. Basically politicians are using the framing of the glorified past within “American values” to manufacture dissent and create us/them other-izing between US citizens. The book explains it much more in depth. Get people to stop thinking of their fellow citizens as part of the same group as them in a fundamental way and chaos reigns. Maybe eventually it’s civil war. (It definitely drives that country from thinking of international factors.)
Probably another interesting definition of American values would be the ones held in foreign people. Sort of in the same way there’s who you are and then there’s the person in the minds of everyone who knows you. Except the US is a super power that’s done a lot of steering the world over the last century and that’s instilled some common practices across the world. Like citing CDC guidelines or using the US currency for reserve.
Probably another interesting definition of American values would be the ones held in foreign people. Sort of in the same way there’s who you are and then there’s the person in the minds of everyone who knows you. Except the US is a super power that’s done a lot of steering the world over the last century and that’s instilled some common practices across the world. Like citing CDC guidelines or using the US currency for reserve.
Many American values are fuzzy, hard to make out; how they are applied is only visible if you dig into history. Not the history in textbooks though ... at least until you've innoculated yourself with Howard Zinn's history. Pay particular attention to how those values - say, 'all men are created equal' - apply to minorities.
> I wonder whether there's any actual examples of the values being brought back from a point where they have disappeared.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you asking about examples of people that have been de-radicalized?
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you asking about examples of people that have been de-radicalized?
To be clearer - given Jones asserts that the reversal of satanists/globalists is good, are there examples of where such a reversal has had positive measurable effects on a society? I'm looking to understand perspectives opposite to my own here (as an atheist, non-American, liberal leaning person).
> given Jones asserts that the reversal of satanists/globalists is good, are there examples of where such a reversal has had positive measurable effects on a society
Uh, it's not that kind of belief system. The notion that we should order society by measurable things is not necessarily a universal belief, even if it's one I agree with personally. Last bastion apocalyptism like I've described doesn't really do "measurable".
Uh, it's not that kind of belief system. The notion that we should order society by measurable things is not necessarily a universal belief, even if it's one I agree with personally. Last bastion apocalyptism like I've described doesn't really do "measurable".
One common example is that religious cultures have a family culture that can propagates through time by having replacement levels of offspring.
So far, to date, every secular and atheistic culture tends towards inverting the demographic pyramid by having about half the required number of offspring to stabilize their culture/viewpoint through time.
This view assumes that there is any meaning to life, of course.
So far, to date, every secular and atheistic culture tends towards inverting the demographic pyramid by having about half the required number of offspring to stabilize their culture/viewpoint through time.
This view assumes that there is any meaning to life, of course.
And the counter example on that is that disproportionate taking of POC adult males from the community has a destabilization effect on that community / family.
"What sort of logic supports that American values are those held by a minority of Americans. What possible values suggest they are the normal ones?"
The US Bill of Rights.
The US Bill of Rights.
You're being downvoted, but you're correct. Values espoused by the founding documents of the current United States government are also properly called American, even if the majority of americans disagree. There's two possible meanings here that is causing people confusion.
One might argue that technically (akshually?) the Bill of Rights goes against the founding documents of USA, amending them a few years later with values that were not in the original constitution to satisfy anti-federalists criticising the initial design (and its values).
So you're saying that slavery is an American value?
It is, after all, in the Constitution, although its popularity has waned of late.
It is, after all, in the Constitution, although its popularity has waned of late.
That's more informative than the article was, thank you.
Points 1 and 2 should be combined and addressed as "how civil services protect and better the community".
The issues of homelessness, drug addiction, and dis-enfranchisement of displaced people all relate to failed social safety nets and social planning. My understanding is that decades ago, in the early 80s IIRC, a terrible abuse and system for housing the mentally ill was disbanded. Unfortunately nothing took it's place.
There are also very troubling issues related to lack of housing, lack of jobs, and lack of a proper program to connect displaced individuals with that type of societal re-integration. A New "New Deal", in any form, could enrich the value of society by re-educating and providing jobs which enrich the commons of society thus improving the lives and economic fitness of all. Better those handouts from our taxes trickle up to the rich, as all else currently does, than go directly to their coffers in tax cuts.
Point 3, and probably 5 as well: The report I suggested would be the best way of understanding this issue for everyone. The issue is Taxes VS Benefits; not absolute tax taken. Until the balance of benefits to taxes is understood this is a straw man which needs more data for all sides to understand.
Point 5: Regulation in specific. Ideally regulation prevents more problems than it causes. Regulation should allow assumptions about fitness for use, safety, and fairness to all parties involved to exist. If there is some regulation which does not contribute to this common good, to the preservation of the commons, or if there is a lack of regulation which is resulting in abuse, then said regulations should be revisited by the representatives of the people.
6: "the ruling party" I take this as slang for the currently dominant political party, but it is strikingly 'Us' vs 'Them' and very divisively secessionist. Extremely misguided. Reform of our electoral systems and categorization of representation should be undertaken to finally liberate all citizens from the First Past The Post voting system to ANY kind of instant runoff. We need to have a spectrum of political parties to promote compromise and plans that work for many rather than for few.
Points 1 and 2 should be combined and addressed as "how civil services protect and better the community".
The issues of homelessness, drug addiction, and dis-enfranchisement of displaced people all relate to failed social safety nets and social planning. My understanding is that decades ago, in the early 80s IIRC, a terrible abuse and system for housing the mentally ill was disbanded. Unfortunately nothing took it's place.
There are also very troubling issues related to lack of housing, lack of jobs, and lack of a proper program to connect displaced individuals with that type of societal re-integration. A New "New Deal", in any form, could enrich the value of society by re-educating and providing jobs which enrich the commons of society thus improving the lives and economic fitness of all. Better those handouts from our taxes trickle up to the rich, as all else currently does, than go directly to their coffers in tax cuts.
Point 3, and probably 5 as well: The report I suggested would be the best way of understanding this issue for everyone. The issue is Taxes VS Benefits; not absolute tax taken. Until the balance of benefits to taxes is understood this is a straw man which needs more data for all sides to understand.
Point 5: Regulation in specific. Ideally regulation prevents more problems than it causes. Regulation should allow assumptions about fitness for use, safety, and fairness to all parties involved to exist. If there is some regulation which does not contribute to this common good, to the preservation of the commons, or if there is a lack of regulation which is resulting in abuse, then said regulations should be revisited by the representatives of the people.
6: "the ruling party" I take this as slang for the currently dominant political party, but it is strikingly 'Us' vs 'Them' and very divisively secessionist. Extremely misguided. Reform of our electoral systems and categorization of representation should be undertaken to finally liberate all citizens from the First Past The Post voting system to ANY kind of instant runoff. We need to have a spectrum of political parties to promote compromise and plans that work for many rather than for few.
> Points 1 and 2 should be combined and addressed as "how civil services protect and better the community"
No, point 2 is specifically calling out antifa and BLM, and catering to racist fears, but in coded language.
No, point 2 is specifically calling out antifa and BLM, and catering to racist fears, but in coded language.
Can I just say, for me the use of the term "illegals" under the section of Law and Order comes across as a dehumanizing slur.
how unfortunate.
how unfortunate.
I'm struck by how "homeless" is included in a list containing "criminals", "arsonists", and "rioters". The homeless aren't people we need protection from, they're people we need to help.
Traditional conservative dogma requires the belief that poverty or misfortune follows from an inherent moral failing, never from circumstance. Therefore criminals cannot be reformed, homeless cannot be helped. The only solution is to remove them.
Of course traditional conservative dogma also has extremely strong private safety nets. Just look at Utah and the mormons. Or the Amish. I mean, I understand that many people do not understand this, but I have found that atheists and the unchurched cannot comprehend just how substantial most church support programs are. In my old parish, my wife and I practically lived at the place and when we had our first baby, we got free baby-sitting, meals, company, etc, even though we were far from our families. Many we know in our town (Portland, mostly irreligious) have to pay for this. How sad.
This is what I find so bizarre about the 'left' in this country (in quotes because I'm making wild generalizations). They say they are all about community and social ownership and responsibility, but they don't actually do it. Their ideal is lived out everyday in churches across the country. It used to be the case that the 'left' in this country (by that I mean the democratic party) was made up of the churched, so their ideals for social programs matched their lifestyles of intense social participation and private contributions to welfare programs. But today, the right is the one most likely to contribute to charity, and in my opinion, the one most likely to live in the leftist utopia.
I'll give an example. I hear all the time from those around me (I live in Portland) about family members homeless due to schizophrenia. As a very conservative religious man (and child of immigrants, so maybe it's that), I find this incredibly odd. My uncle has schizophrenia and was deported from this country after going after someone with a knife.
However, at no point was he ever homeless. My mother and father -- both incredibly unwavering law and order types -- kept my uncle in their house and assumed absolute responsibility for him until he was sent back to India. Once he was there, at no point was he allowed to live in destitution on the streets (we are not a rich family either). Eventually, he married a woman he knew (and who knew about his condition and has been able to manage it) and he has kids. Don't get me wrong.... the man is still crazy in a sense. At one point, he made up a religion unbeknownst to us, proclaimed himself God, and got many hundreds of followers on facebook. But at no point could we have ever imagined him homeless. In my view, what's missing in America is any sort of actual concern for our fellow man, our family most importantly. Everyone seems to want to outsource 'caring' for others to the government instead of actually doing the hard work.
Here's another example. Leftists want community health care. Okay, that's fine. But again, right-wing Christians are the ones actually doing it. Health sharing ministries see Christians pool together money so that no congregant has to face undue financial hardship. If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month representing your 'share' of all members total emergency expenses. Again, supposedly thrifty conservatives simply giving their money away to actually help people instead of waiting. I don't get it.
This is what I find so bizarre about the 'left' in this country (in quotes because I'm making wild generalizations). They say they are all about community and social ownership and responsibility, but they don't actually do it. Their ideal is lived out everyday in churches across the country. It used to be the case that the 'left' in this country (by that I mean the democratic party) was made up of the churched, so their ideals for social programs matched their lifestyles of intense social participation and private contributions to welfare programs. But today, the right is the one most likely to contribute to charity, and in my opinion, the one most likely to live in the leftist utopia.
I'll give an example. I hear all the time from those around me (I live in Portland) about family members homeless due to schizophrenia. As a very conservative religious man (and child of immigrants, so maybe it's that), I find this incredibly odd. My uncle has schizophrenia and was deported from this country after going after someone with a knife.
However, at no point was he ever homeless. My mother and father -- both incredibly unwavering law and order types -- kept my uncle in their house and assumed absolute responsibility for him until he was sent back to India. Once he was there, at no point was he allowed to live in destitution on the streets (we are not a rich family either). Eventually, he married a woman he knew (and who knew about his condition and has been able to manage it) and he has kids. Don't get me wrong.... the man is still crazy in a sense. At one point, he made up a religion unbeknownst to us, proclaimed himself God, and got many hundreds of followers on facebook. But at no point could we have ever imagined him homeless. In my view, what's missing in America is any sort of actual concern for our fellow man, our family most importantly. Everyone seems to want to outsource 'caring' for others to the government instead of actually doing the hard work.
Here's another example. Leftists want community health care. Okay, that's fine. But again, right-wing Christians are the ones actually doing it. Health sharing ministries see Christians pool together money so that no congregant has to face undue financial hardship. If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month representing your 'share' of all members total emergency expenses. Again, supposedly thrifty conservatives simply giving their money away to actually help people instead of waiting. I don't get it.
What percentage of Christian ministries are actually providing these services? You don't say, just that some are. I would say that this is far from widespread phenomenon.
Are Christian ministries actually providing comprehensive healthcare, or only those procedures that they morally approve of?
If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty, more untreated diabetes, and worse healthcare in conservative states?
Why should the availability of healthcare be contingent on your religious beliefs?
Are Christian ministries actually providing comprehensive healthcare, or only those procedures that they morally approve of?
If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty, more untreated diabetes, and worse healthcare in conservative states?
Why should the availability of healthcare be contingent on your religious beliefs?
Needlessly combative comment, but I'll bite I guess.
As to what percent, I can't give it to you. How do you quantify how much your friend likes you. A lot of this support is not organized, like the meal train I mentioned for my wife and I after our first kid.
WRT 'comprehensive' healthcare, many conservative people would find those procedures offensive and unnecessary.
> If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty,
Because it's relatively easy to be poor in a conservative area if you have community support. Lots of people to give you food and handouts. Like my aunt and uncle who retired way early and are technically impoverished, but live a good life, around family, friends, lots of food (from their church), etc.
> more untreated diabetes
because conservative people do not typically believe that life is the only end worth pursuing. This sounds strange given the 'pro-life' stuff, but you see it with COVID too. To a religious person, death is just the beginning, and what they perceive to be overly invasive measures to prolong life is not worth it. Whether it be diabetes dieting or covid lockdowns. Remember, the christian ethos is not utilitarian.
> and worse healthcare in conservative states?
All the good doctors realize they can make more money in blue states?
As to what percent, I can't give it to you. How do you quantify how much your friend likes you. A lot of this support is not organized, like the meal train I mentioned for my wife and I after our first kid.
WRT 'comprehensive' healthcare, many conservative people would find those procedures offensive and unnecessary.
> If conservatives are the "real" humanitarians, why is there more poverty,
Because it's relatively easy to be poor in a conservative area if you have community support. Lots of people to give you food and handouts. Like my aunt and uncle who retired way early and are technically impoverished, but live a good life, around family, friends, lots of food (from their church), etc.
> more untreated diabetes
because conservative people do not typically believe that life is the only end worth pursuing. This sounds strange given the 'pro-life' stuff, but you see it with COVID too. To a religious person, death is just the beginning, and what they perceive to be overly invasive measures to prolong life is not worth it. Whether it be diabetes dieting or covid lockdowns. Remember, the christian ethos is not utilitarian.
> and worse healthcare in conservative states?
All the good doctors realize they can make more money in blue states?
1. If you're going to argue that argue that religious-provided healthcare is superior to secular, you're going to have to do better than "well, who can say." You've given some anecdata, with nothing to back it up.
2. I'm aware that conservative people consider certain procedure unnecessary. My point is that religious-based moral outrage has no place in deciding the proper standard of care. Your approach means that when your morals contradict another person's health, you get to choose what kind of services they get. That's a great reason to divorce healthcare from religious influence.
3. Being poor sounds great! Makes me wonder why more people don't move to the south and live in the socialist utopia that you describe, where everyone has all their needs fulfilled with no effort.
4. If death is just the beginning, maybe we should abolish healthcare entirely, and just get to the good part sooner. Instead of wasting money on MRI machines, heart surgery, and diabetes medication, we should instead wisely invest in elaborate mausoleum, like the pharaohs of old. This also conveniently explains why religious conservatives, although ostensibly caring about their fellow man, consistently vote against any expansion of state-provided healthcare, which is selfishly rooted in the notion of keeping people out of heaven.
2. I'm aware that conservative people consider certain procedure unnecessary. My point is that religious-based moral outrage has no place in deciding the proper standard of care. Your approach means that when your morals contradict another person's health, you get to choose what kind of services they get. That's a great reason to divorce healthcare from religious influence.
3. Being poor sounds great! Makes me wonder why more people don't move to the south and live in the socialist utopia that you describe, where everyone has all their needs fulfilled with no effort.
4. If death is just the beginning, maybe we should abolish healthcare entirely, and just get to the good part sooner. Instead of wasting money on MRI machines, heart surgery, and diabetes medication, we should instead wisely invest in elaborate mausoleum, like the pharaohs of old. This also conveniently explains why religious conservatives, although ostensibly caring about their fellow man, consistently vote against any expansion of state-provided healthcare, which is selfishly rooted in the notion of keeping people out of heaven.
You say "Many we know in our town have to pay for this. How sad." but then you go own to observe that "If you join this ministry you essentially get a 'tax' each month".
So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.
So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.
> So it's not that you didn't pay for it - you did, and continue to. But your support is contingent on following the rules of the community and maintaining your welcome, while the irreligious people in Portland had a more straightforward transaction.
Not really. If we could'nt afford it, it wouldn't be demanded.
Not really. If we could'nt afford it, it wouldn't be demanded.
Who owns the hospitals in Portland? There is no conflict between churches and capitalism, either.
Illegals is, of course, a shorthand for illegal alien. The shorthand was created because of the regularity of having to describe such an individual. In what way could someone describe the reality of "a person who has violated international border agreements and is residing in a country in violation of the laws of that country" that you would not consider dehumanizing?
People can’t be illegal. They can be in the country without proper documentation. The _correct_ and _humane_ term is “undocumented”.
This is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.
People can't be illegal, but they can do illegal things. I've never liked "illegal alien" or "illegals", but "undocumented noncitizen" seems much less accurate than "illegal immigrant".
I support a path to citizenship and making all forms of immigration more fair, humane and much more widely available. I don't understand the push from some on the left to say that all enforcement of immigration laws should go away.
I support a path to citizenship and making all forms of immigration more fair, humane and much more widely available. I don't understand the push from some on the left to say that all enforcement of immigration laws should go away.
[deleted]
Looks like it's the old dispute about 2A and I kind of understand them. Last time I heard, Oregon voted to outlaw mags with more than 10 bullets. Rural folks have disagreed and resolved the conflict in a civil manner: by declaring that they will have different laws from the big city Oregon.
Not sure what they've done in practice here from what you wrote. Are you implying that they made a public declaration that they would simply choose to ignore such a law?
As is their right. Self-determination is an American value.
EDIT: downvoted by those who believe voting and determining your area's form of governance is anti-American!
EDIT: downvoted by those who believe voting and determining your area's form of governance is anti-American!
We fought a war about "determining your area's form of governance." As I recall, the south lost that one.
> 4. Safety: Idaho allows forests to be managed to prevent destruction of housing from huge wildfires.
I just spent a month in central Oregon and there were proscribed burns going on all over the place. It was the most forest management I've seen in any state.
I just spent a month in central Oregon and there were proscribed burns going on all over the place. It was the most forest management I've seen in any state.
This is coded language to mean "we can pull resources from federal/state lands but not pay for them".
I thought it was coded language for "we can let logging corporations plunder the forest with no oversight."
Both works to be honest.
Both works to be honest.
>violate more and more American values and American freedoms
If they were really a proponent of freedom then they would support the freedom of adults to smoke/injest/snort/inject anything they want. "Addicts will be attracted to Oregon..." precisely because of that freedom.
If they were really a proponent of freedom then they would support the freedom of adults to smoke/injest/snort/inject anything they want. "Addicts will be attracted to Oregon..." precisely because of that freedom.
I own land in a rural area (house coming in maybe a year) and I have spoken to the neighbors. For the most part it's little things actually. Rules that the major cities deal with, like not being allowed to put up a specific kind of fence because the bureaucrats in the city look at .1 acre plots of land and don't like how certain fences look - where out here we're dealing with 5 to 100 acres (and in some cases a 40000 acres of land). Or that we should be required to pay "school fees" when we build a house because there's "no fucking school" out here! One guy had to dismantle a building he erected (he's a builder) because he maxed out on "how much roof" he can have.
There was one guy talking about Jesus but for the most part we're pretty sure he wasn't an anti-masker. Actually all of our neighbors have told us they wear a mask by the way. So yeah, it's really just getting away from the legal requirements that the populated places need but forget to loosen the rules far away.
Now every county is different so take my input as a grain of salt.
There was one guy talking about Jesus but for the most part we're pretty sure he wasn't an anti-masker. Actually all of our neighbors have told us they wear a mask by the way. So yeah, it's really just getting away from the legal requirements that the populated places need but forget to loosen the rules far away.
Now every county is different so take my input as a grain of salt.
yea, thats not really the story in idaho/oregon area. A lot of the issue there is that lots of the land is owned by the federal government, and the people who live near by and are in ranching/mining/logging don't want to follow the rules the fed gov puts on operations in BLM land. There is a bit of "some guy 4k miles away in washington isn't allowed to tell me I can't ride my dirt bike here" attitude.
> Rules that the major cities deal with, like not being allowed to put up a specific kind of fence because the bureaucrats in the city look at .1 acre plots of land and don't like how certain fences look - where out here we're dealing with 5 to 100 acres (and in some cases a 40000 acres of land).
Wait, these rules aren't something that are enacted and enforced at an individual city / town level? These are state-wide zoning(?) rules being applied universally to all jurisdictions in the state? If so, that does seem obnoxious..
(I don't own land so I am very unfamiliar in how zoning regulation plays itself out, so apologies ahead of time.)
Wait, these rules aren't something that are enacted and enforced at an individual city / town level? These are state-wide zoning(?) rules being applied universally to all jurisdictions in the state? If so, that does seem obnoxious..
(I don't own land so I am very unfamiliar in how zoning regulation plays itself out, so apologies ahead of time.)
Out here, those rules are enforced at the county level if there's no city nearby. Counties can be massive and include lots of out of the way land.
> One guy had to dismantle a building he erected (he's a builder) because he maxed out on "how much roof" he can have.
Please tell me what part of the country this is so I can avoid it.
Please tell me what part of the country this is so I can avoid it.
Floor Area Ratio regulations are pretty standard rules.
However, rules like these are "zoning/planning" and are usually set by the city or county, not the state.
The county shifting to Idaho is likely to have no effect on that regulation.
FAR's are why Palo Alto had to bring in regulations on basement sizes (the majority of the house was underground!), and why Zuckerberg is having problems with his renovation plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/palo-alto-zuckerberg-...
https://padailypost.com/2019/08/26/is-city-going-to-far-with...
However, rules like these are "zoning/planning" and are usually set by the city or county, not the state.
The county shifting to Idaho is likely to have no effect on that regulation.
FAR's are why Palo Alto had to bring in regulations on basement sizes (the majority of the house was underground!), and why Zuckerberg is having problems with his renovation plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_area_ratio
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/31/palo-alto-zuckerberg-...
https://padailypost.com/2019/08/26/is-city-going-to-far-with...
It's meant to affect light so should not apply to basements. Finished basement area is still taxed in most counties.
If I were living in that state, I would build a fractal roof for my dog house that had close to an infinite surface area and then I would sue myself to teach people how dumb that rule is.
>My personal believe is presently, for lack of data that I can digest, that the far right is probably focused around emotions
Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right, because, in their opinion, the government should be spending any money on it, other than maybe paying for employees' insurance. Every dollar the government spends on it now is just an example of how the government can't do anything right.
I think it's common for people on opposite ends of the spectrum see the other side as 'not grounded in data'. After all, if they saw the reason in the opinions of the other side, they'd be in the middle instead of the end they're on.
All that being said, I think more clarity in government spending would go a long way in creating more/less trust in government's handling of certain operations. Maybe the right sees less inefficiency than they imagined, maybe the left sees more, but we'd at least have some real data to compare.
Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right, because, in their opinion, the government should be spending any money on it, other than maybe paying for employees' insurance. Every dollar the government spends on it now is just an example of how the government can't do anything right.
I think it's common for people on opposite ends of the spectrum see the other side as 'not grounded in data'. After all, if they saw the reason in the opinions of the other side, they'd be in the middle instead of the end they're on.
All that being said, I think more clarity in government spending would go a long way in creating more/less trust in government's handling of certain operations. Maybe the right sees less inefficiency than they imagined, maybe the left sees more, but we'd at least have some real data to compare.
> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ...
You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently. Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers. And the consumers simply have no choice.
You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently. Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers. And the consumers simply have no choice.
> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ...
Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms.
It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies.
Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms.
It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of employees. It’s a major problem for small companies.
Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
> Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms.
Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment?
>Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment?
>Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
What is the difference between essential and not essential? I don't think there's a good objective basis for what is and isn't, it just comes down to the costs healthy people are willing to bear, which comes down to feelings again.
Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to
higher unemployment?
The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum?
Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees.
Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be).
Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum?
Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees.
Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be).
Everything else is quite subjective, and cost is a factor.
> Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment?
More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other.
> The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum?
I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.
> to different degrees
Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.
More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other.
> The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum?
I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.
> to different degrees
Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.
> More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other.
Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire.
>I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.
You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out.
> Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.
And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”.
There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.
Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire.
>I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.
You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out.
> Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.
And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”.
There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.
> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms.
I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits".
> Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
Yeah, that's true in most if not all countries with universal healthcare. Of course, as someone else alluded to, it's a difficult distinction to make. I don't care about the mole on my face but a mole might legitimately effect someone else's mental health.
I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits".
> Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and care.
Yeah, that's true in most if not all countries with universal healthcare. Of course, as someone else alluded to, it's a difficult distinction to make. I don't care about the mole on my face but a mole might legitimately effect someone else's mental health.
> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits".
I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way.
What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever.
If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision.
It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage.
Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.
I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way.
What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever.
If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision.
It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage.
Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.
I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start).
And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).
And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).
>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently
That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare.
>Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers
That's simply not true. They all have profit motive.
>And the consumers simply have no choice.
That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare.
>Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers
That's simply not true. They all have profit motive.
>And the consumers simply have no choice.
That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
> That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare.
People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello?
> That's simply not true. They all have profit motive.
Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs.
> That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.
People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello?
> That's simply not true. They all have profit motive.
Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs.
> That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.
That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.
> what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'?
Uninsured, underinsured, or people with high deductibles are much, much more likely to let a health issue linger for much longer than someone who gets free (to them) healthcare. If an issue lingers, getting worse and worse, it may eventually reach the point where it forces them out of the workforce; they stop paying taxes, they stop purchasing commercial goods which drive the economy, they stop buying new cars, etc. (on an individual basis, this is rare, but compounded by 40 million or so people it adds up to a lot of people not performing economic activity who would otherwise be making and spending money)
Free-for-me healthcare is better at providing preventative medicine than out-of-pocket healthcare. Preventative medicine is cheaper in absolute terms over the long term that remedial medicine, even if preventative medicine is much more common that remedial medicine. If remedial medicine removes a person from the work force, that costs the entire GDP a worker.
It is better for all of us -- in purely economic terms -- to have a worker wearing a government issued back brace, taking government issued anti-inflammatory drugs, and participating in government sponsored physical therapy than having a non-worker have back surgery on an insurance plan that spreads the cost among all of that insurer's other customers instead of producing widgets in the factory.
I might not speak for that many people on the left, but I personally support anti-poverty programs as a general rule not because I care about the plight of humanity or whatever, (fuck 'em) but because taxing people and spending those tax dollars on anti-poverty programs improve my overall quality of life more than just letting us keep the money. Every poor person, every homeless person, needs to have tax dollars devoted to them in terms of police and emergency services. Two years ago someone smashed my car's window, stole a $20 backpack with $40 worth of gym clothes, costing me a $500 deductible to replace the window and fix the e-brake. Pretty sure if that asshole had a better education, was given free tradeschool or college they wouldn't have smashed my window.
We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather have a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. In a dozen ways. And that's fucking stupid.
Uninsured, underinsured, or people with high deductibles are much, much more likely to let a health issue linger for much longer than someone who gets free (to them) healthcare. If an issue lingers, getting worse and worse, it may eventually reach the point where it forces them out of the workforce; they stop paying taxes, they stop purchasing commercial goods which drive the economy, they stop buying new cars, etc. (on an individual basis, this is rare, but compounded by 40 million or so people it adds up to a lot of people not performing economic activity who would otherwise be making and spending money)
Free-for-me healthcare is better at providing preventative medicine than out-of-pocket healthcare. Preventative medicine is cheaper in absolute terms over the long term that remedial medicine, even if preventative medicine is much more common that remedial medicine. If remedial medicine removes a person from the work force, that costs the entire GDP a worker.
It is better for all of us -- in purely economic terms -- to have a worker wearing a government issued back brace, taking government issued anti-inflammatory drugs, and participating in government sponsored physical therapy than having a non-worker have back surgery on an insurance plan that spreads the cost among all of that insurer's other customers instead of producing widgets in the factory.
I might not speak for that many people on the left, but I personally support anti-poverty programs as a general rule not because I care about the plight of humanity or whatever, (fuck 'em) but because taxing people and spending those tax dollars on anti-poverty programs improve my overall quality of life more than just letting us keep the money. Every poor person, every homeless person, needs to have tax dollars devoted to them in terms of police and emergency services. Two years ago someone smashed my car's window, stole a $20 backpack with $40 worth of gym clothes, costing me a $500 deductible to replace the window and fix the e-brake. Pretty sure if that asshole had a better education, was given free tradeschool or college they wouldn't have smashed my window.
We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather have a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. In a dozen ways. And that's fucking stupid.
Yes they can vote to leave the state but they should also not get any of the tax dollars from the more densely populated counties that stay behind. Thank you , sayonara!
> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'?
Ask Bismarck. The first quasi-universal healthcare system wasn’t introduced because Bismarck was so nice; it was to increase productivity and discourage people from voting for the socialists.
Ask Bismarck. The first quasi-universal healthcare system wasn’t introduced because Bismarck was so nice; it was to increase productivity and discourage people from voting for the socialists.
Except a lot on the left is driven by data.
Banning plastic straws, asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women, and eliminating SAT scores doesn't seem like a science-driven approach, but more of a faith-based science-denialism.
Genuine question: what's wrong with banning plastic straws?
Edit: I know that paper straws are a pain to drink through, my question was more: why is banning plastic straws an example of "faith-based science denialism"?
Edit: I know that paper straws are a pain to drink through, my question was more: why is banning plastic straws an example of "faith-based science denialism"?
> Genuine question: what's wrong with banning plastic straws?
The push to ban plastic straws was nearly entirely based on misinformation or lack of information. Most of the debate was propelled to the highest levels by a 4th grader that literally made the data up[1], but that data was used to prescribe a "science and data driven ban".
Turns out, plastic straws really were never a big problem. Sure, single-use-plastic is a problem in general, but the ban of plastic straws has had nearly zero impact on the environment - or it could be argued it's had a negative impact since companies like Starbucks started using "multi-use" recyclable lids which in reality end up being single-use and are often thrown into the trash instead of recycling bin, and use more plastic material than dozens of straws combined.
The plastic bag ban is the same way too... turns out those reusable cotton tote bags consume way more energy to produce than thin plastic bags, causing dramatic increases in GHG releases, energy consumption, etc[2][3]. We now know plastic bags and straws are not a major contributor (or at all, really) to that massive plastic dump in the Pacific Ocean, which is mostly from fishing vessel waste tossed overboard. Good intentions with poor consequences unfortunately.
It's this sort of "theater" that puts people off...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/plastic-straws-b...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/sustainable-shoppin...
[3] https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-cotto...
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacifi...
The push to ban plastic straws was nearly entirely based on misinformation or lack of information. Most of the debate was propelled to the highest levels by a 4th grader that literally made the data up[1], but that data was used to prescribe a "science and data driven ban".
Turns out, plastic straws really were never a big problem. Sure, single-use-plastic is a problem in general, but the ban of plastic straws has had nearly zero impact on the environment - or it could be argued it's had a negative impact since companies like Starbucks started using "multi-use" recyclable lids which in reality end up being single-use and are often thrown into the trash instead of recycling bin, and use more plastic material than dozens of straws combined.
The plastic bag ban is the same way too... turns out those reusable cotton tote bags consume way more energy to produce than thin plastic bags, causing dramatic increases in GHG releases, energy consumption, etc[2][3]. We now know plastic bags and straws are not a major contributor (or at all, really) to that massive plastic dump in the Pacific Ocean, which is mostly from fishing vessel waste tossed overboard. Good intentions with poor consequences unfortunately.
It's this sort of "theater" that puts people off...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/plastic-straws-b...
[2] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/sustainable-shoppin...
[3] https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-cotto...
[4] https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacifi...
Hypothetical answer: A ban on plastic straws can unintentionally make life more difficult for individuals with motor disabilities.
Paper straws break down relatively quickly and can lose suction effectiveness as a result. Reusable metal straws can cause chipped teeth or gum damage if bitten down on by someone with poor fine motor control. No straws at all can leave an individual unable to ingest liquids entirely. Reusable soft plastic straws would be ideal, but the tradeoff is that now we've placed yet an extra burden on an impaired person (or their caretakers) in our society because now they'll need to maintain a supply of clean, reusable straws that they need to transport with them. Disposable plastic straws are "soft" enough to not damage someone's teeth or gums too severely when bitten down on, but are more durable than paper straws to ensure reliable suction over time, and they do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.
Paper straws break down relatively quickly and can lose suction effectiveness as a result. Reusable metal straws can cause chipped teeth or gum damage if bitten down on by someone with poor fine motor control. No straws at all can leave an individual unable to ingest liquids entirely. Reusable soft plastic straws would be ideal, but the tradeoff is that now we've placed yet an extra burden on an impaired person (or their caretakers) in our society because now they'll need to maintain a supply of clean, reusable straws that they need to transport with them. Disposable plastic straws are "soft" enough to not damage someone's teeth or gums too severely when bitten down on, but are more durable than paper straws to ensure reliable suction over time, and they do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.
I'm not sure if I can do this topic justice solely over text, but I'm going to try because I genuinely think it's important to address, and with the plea that I'm truly not trying to be a horse's ass here and disparage people who have different needs. If anything, I think people who have different needs are the ones being taken advantage of, both coming and going.
This quote really stood out to me:
> and they [disposable plastic straws] do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.
It's a rather bright example of the problem our global society has put itself into: there's still a need to deal with these items, but that need is no longer on the person using the item; it has been outsourced to the rubbish bin and, thus, to society and the environment at large.
We've done this to ourselves in myriad ways. Expanding public transport is "unfair" to people who have different needs because perhaps some people cannot quickly or easily board transit vehicles, or those trips do not go to the front door of where some people need to go. We cannot eliminate or shrink parking requirements or availability for the same reason.
Politically, we stop at "well, can't do that" without considering "OK, how could we do almost all of that with modifications for people who have other needs?"
We've fallen into the perfect must be the only outcome otherwise why bother. Some of that is genuinely not knowing, but large parts of opposition to the changes we know we need to make--both individually and on the companies and businesses supplying us in environmentally-poor ways--are disingenuously hiding behind those arguments simply to obstruct.
That's frustrating.
This quote really stood out to me:
> and they [disposable plastic straws] do not require any upkeep or maintenance for proper hygiene due to their disposable nature.
It's a rather bright example of the problem our global society has put itself into: there's still a need to deal with these items, but that need is no longer on the person using the item; it has been outsourced to the rubbish bin and, thus, to society and the environment at large.
We've done this to ourselves in myriad ways. Expanding public transport is "unfair" to people who have different needs because perhaps some people cannot quickly or easily board transit vehicles, or those trips do not go to the front door of where some people need to go. We cannot eliminate or shrink parking requirements or availability for the same reason.
Politically, we stop at "well, can't do that" without considering "OK, how could we do almost all of that with modifications for people who have other needs?"
We've fallen into the perfect must be the only outcome otherwise why bother. Some of that is genuinely not knowing, but large parts of opposition to the changes we know we need to make--both individually and on the companies and businesses supplying us in environmentally-poor ways--are disingenuously hiding behind those arguments simply to obstruct.
That's frustrating.
I'm unaware of any jurisdiction in which plastic straws are banned that does not explicitly make exceptions for those with disabilities.
Paper straws don't work well if you take too long to drink or if you are drinking something thick.
Tangentially, has anyone developed a good use for old plastic straws? Like melting them down to 3D printer filament, or maybe just switch to corn/soy based plastic that is biodegradable within a reasonable time? Paper and metal are just not good substitutes. I think some of the "anti-big government" sentiment comes from banning very useful items without some sort of acceptable substitute.
There's a lot to unpack in your short utterance I just would like to comment on eliminating SAT scores.
> Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate) accounted for a whopping 89 percent of the differences in state scores
from https://alfiekohn.org/teaching/pdf/Standardized%20Testing%20... if you really want I can dig up the old study.
> Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate) accounted for a whopping 89 percent of the differences in state scores
from https://alfiekohn.org/teaching/pdf/Standardized%20Testing%20... if you really want I can dig up the old study.
Those same factors explain a large portion of differences in educational achievement. Doesn't that mean the test is then doing what it is designed to do?
Your answer is as shortsighted and stems from the same fundamental misunderstanding as those given to "defund the police".
We need to change education itself so it is not a tool of systemic racism. Which currently, based on that study, it is. In a sense you are right: yes, it does its job if the job is to be the canary in the coal mine. But we did away with canaries in the coal mines and made the mines more secure.
We need to change education itself so it is not a tool of systemic racism. Which currently, based on that study, it is. In a sense you are right: yes, it does its job if the job is to be the canary in the coal mine. But we did away with canaries in the coal mines and made the mines more secure.
> doesn't seem like a science-driven approach, but more of a faith-based science-denialism.
Only if you are deliberately framing these points that way. I'll try to explain how these points can actually be explained as science-driven
> Banning plastic straws
In the US alone, 500M straws were used per day (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/news-...). Given that many of these end up in the environment as consumers simply discard the container wherever they are walking, this is a serious reduction in litter.
> asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women
This one is a really hard debate, however... hormone distribution varies enormously between the two major biological genders so we're already (effectively) selecting athletes with the "best" ratios. Add to that people with intergender bodies (e.g. XY chromosome set but fully presenting as "female", XX chromosomes but have "male" body parts), and it becomes a real mess to define what is a male, what is a female and where a specific individual should be allowed to compete in - even if you're only going by purely biological metrics (hormone levels, appearance of gender-specific body parts). Add to that the "faith-based" stuff aka social gender norms and gender equality/anti-discrimination, and it gets very messy very soon.
tl;dr: for this point, there cannot ever be a "scientific consent" on what's correct and what's wrong. Personally I'd argue for a body-weight differentiation in sports (as it's done in boxing) instead of gender-based, since that way you have at least some common factor that is closely linked with physical strength.
> and eliminating SAT scores
Scoring of almost all kinds has provable issues - and especially in education:
- social background has massive effects on scores: rich parents can afford a lot of things closely linked to higher educational outcome such as private tutors, each child having their own room from a young age, send their children to well-funded public or private schools, or offering a stress-free environment for the child in general whereas poor parents are stuck with whatever the public school system offers, children often not having their own rooms which means they can't effectively learn if their baby sibling is crying in "their" room, and parents passing on their stress (poverty, overcrowding, homelessness, messy divorces, domestic violence) onto their children
- ethnic background: children of minorities have been proven to be discriminated against by teachers even at a young age, not to mention stuff like systemic under-funding of schools in geographic areas where school funding is based on the taxable income of the people living in this area, which is (again) closely linked to ethnic background as a result of segregation and gentrification
- government background: additionally to that, public schools may differ wildly in quality of teaching based on the funding priorities of county and state
- scoring leads to teachers "teaching for the test" aka "bulimia learning" instead of actual long-lasting knowledge transfer. This is something tests aren't primarily at fault for, but nevertheless play an important role
- scoring disproportionally affects students with mental health problems (e.g. test phobia), with dyslexia / dyscalculia and other learning impediments, and also those whose talents are outside of language and math
tl;dr: scoring is deeply flawed as a concept, where especially children from poor backgrounds (no matter if the family or the government is poor) suffer from massive discrimination.
Only if you are deliberately framing these points that way. I'll try to explain how these points can actually be explained as science-driven
> Banning plastic straws
In the US alone, 500M straws were used per day (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/news-...). Given that many of these end up in the environment as consumers simply discard the container wherever they are walking, this is a serious reduction in litter.
> asserting that men should compete against women in sports if they identify as women
This one is a really hard debate, however... hormone distribution varies enormously between the two major biological genders so we're already (effectively) selecting athletes with the "best" ratios. Add to that people with intergender bodies (e.g. XY chromosome set but fully presenting as "female", XX chromosomes but have "male" body parts), and it becomes a real mess to define what is a male, what is a female and where a specific individual should be allowed to compete in - even if you're only going by purely biological metrics (hormone levels, appearance of gender-specific body parts). Add to that the "faith-based" stuff aka social gender norms and gender equality/anti-discrimination, and it gets very messy very soon.
tl;dr: for this point, there cannot ever be a "scientific consent" on what's correct and what's wrong. Personally I'd argue for a body-weight differentiation in sports (as it's done in boxing) instead of gender-based, since that way you have at least some common factor that is closely linked with physical strength.
> and eliminating SAT scores
Scoring of almost all kinds has provable issues - and especially in education:
- social background has massive effects on scores: rich parents can afford a lot of things closely linked to higher educational outcome such as private tutors, each child having their own room from a young age, send their children to well-funded public or private schools, or offering a stress-free environment for the child in general whereas poor parents are stuck with whatever the public school system offers, children often not having their own rooms which means they can't effectively learn if their baby sibling is crying in "their" room, and parents passing on their stress (poverty, overcrowding, homelessness, messy divorces, domestic violence) onto their children
- ethnic background: children of minorities have been proven to be discriminated against by teachers even at a young age, not to mention stuff like systemic under-funding of schools in geographic areas where school funding is based on the taxable income of the people living in this area, which is (again) closely linked to ethnic background as a result of segregation and gentrification
- government background: additionally to that, public schools may differ wildly in quality of teaching based on the funding priorities of county and state
- scoring leads to teachers "teaching for the test" aka "bulimia learning" instead of actual long-lasting knowledge transfer. This is something tests aren't primarily at fault for, but nevertheless play an important role
- scoring disproportionally affects students with mental health problems (e.g. test phobia), with dyslexia / dyscalculia and other learning impediments, and also those whose talents are outside of language and math
tl;dr: scoring is deeply flawed as a concept, where especially children from poor backgrounds (no matter if the family or the government is poor) suffer from massive discrimination.
Citation? Or is that just a data-free assertion? ;)
Republican Reagan signed EMTALA which makes it so hospitals can’t refuse service in emergencies due to ability to pay. It stopped people from dying in the street. They did not fund this new mandate and so we currently pay for this through higher insurance premiums and county/municipal emergency service budgets. Universal healthcare would be a more efficient way to pay for an already existing benefit. When uninsured chronic conditions have reached the point you are literally in the ER / close to death, you suddenly get tons of subsidized healthcare. Subsidized in a grossly inefficient manner. Universal healthcare would lower costs through prevention.
I would have more respect for the right if they just admitted they are ok with people dying in the streets since they just ignore the economic effects of EMTALA.
I would have more respect for the right if they just admitted they are ok with people dying in the streets since they just ignore the economic effects of EMTALA.
I live in a predominantly right-leaning area and know a lot of people who are against universal healthcare. I've talked with a lot of them about it, and every single person would be in favor of it if there was a magical guarantee the money would actually be spent properly and not corruptly misallocated. But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever. I can hardly fault them. And the left's argument of "give us more money, we promise to get it right this time" is hardly compelling. Obviously, accusing people on the right of being ok with others dying in the street doesn't help matters.
Wait until those same people find out how private health insurance works. It's not fair to hate on public healthcare in a vacuum without comparing it to the horrendous private system we have now. Then it doesn't look very bad, corrupt, or opaque at all.
This is exactly right. Pretty much anytime the government takes anything over or has a new program...it's a shit show from the beginning. See "Cover Oregon" for a waste of a few hundred million dollars...see "Pandemic Unemployment Fraud" for what is probably a hundred billion...see "PPP program" for what is continuously being found as having tons of fraud...see "Oregon Unemployment still programmed in COBOL and can't adjust the waiting period" for non-financial incompetence. If any area in government could run efficiently and we saw evidence of that...it would be a lot easier to convince everyone that things like universal healthcare would be a good idea.
I am not certain the point you are making.
Are you saying you believe that there are no programs in existence, which are government-run, that are not "shit shows" ?
Are you saying you believe that there are no programs in existence, which are government-run, that are not "shit shows" ?
There are some programs out there that are OK, but I think the gist of the problem is you are missing out on free market forces like price discovery, private equity, and are manipulating risk so anything the government touches ends up becoming less efficient and built with different constraints.
Of course, there are times when efficiency is not the thing we’re optimizing for. The Space Program is an example of a pretty great government program; there was no profit or benefit to private space travel in the 1950s and 60s so the government had to subsidize it, but now that we are starting to see private business catch up, the best thing to do is get government out of the way. This is not all that different during the Age of Discovery where kings and queens subsidized trans-oceanic travel.
IMHO government should only exist to fix free market deficiencies (Monopolies, unfair competition, fledgling industries, lack of players). Not to take over a market and try to dictate it from the top down. Ultimately the goal should be that all people make enough of a wage to afford healthcare and let the market handle it. And still have a safety net for those who fall through the cracks, but the safety net should never be the goal.
Of course, there are times when efficiency is not the thing we’re optimizing for. The Space Program is an example of a pretty great government program; there was no profit or benefit to private space travel in the 1950s and 60s so the government had to subsidize it, but now that we are starting to see private business catch up, the best thing to do is get government out of the way. This is not all that different during the Age of Discovery where kings and queens subsidized trans-oceanic travel.
IMHO government should only exist to fix free market deficiencies (Monopolies, unfair competition, fledgling industries, lack of players). Not to take over a market and try to dictate it from the top down. Ultimately the goal should be that all people make enough of a wage to afford healthcare and let the market handle it. And still have a safety net for those who fall through the cracks, but the safety net should never be the goal.
It's ironic that many of the people I know who have a right leaning politics and a hatred of government waste are also working in sectors that get fat off government waste.
> But the track record is so poor, and there is such little transparency, that they have no trust whatsoever.
The track record of... Medicare? It's one of the most popular programs in government!
What you've done is just aborb spin. It's true that these people don't trust "The Government" to provide health care, because their thought leaders (and peers like you) keep telling them that. But then they go and enroll in Medicare anyway, and it pays for their care, and because nothing breaks and it's never in the news they don't even think about it.
At some point you'd think the truth would break through, but it just doesn't seem to be happening.
Literally every health care system sucks for someone, it's a complicated problem. But everywhere, both within and outside the US, the systems that work BEST are government-run.
The track record of... Medicare? It's one of the most popular programs in government!
What you've done is just aborb spin. It's true that these people don't trust "The Government" to provide health care, because their thought leaders (and peers like you) keep telling them that. But then they go and enroll in Medicare anyway, and it pays for their care, and because nothing breaks and it's never in the news they don't even think about it.
At some point you'd think the truth would break through, but it just doesn't seem to be happening.
Literally every health care system sucks for someone, it's a complicated problem. But everywhere, both within and outside the US, the systems that work BEST are government-run.
There is no alternative to Medicare given the risk profile for the elderly. It has high approval because there is no other option.
It is also not universally accepted- this is only anecdotal, of course, but I had a doctor tell me he didnt accept it because the rates for some procedures worked out to be below the state's hourly minimum wage.
Perhaps a better example would be the VA- government run hospitals and coverage that is perenially in the news for some new corruption or incompetence scandal, and a very very hit or miss reputation.
It is also not universally accepted- this is only anecdotal, of course, but I had a doctor tell me he didnt accept it because the rates for some procedures worked out to be below the state's hourly minimum wage.
Perhaps a better example would be the VA- government run hospitals and coverage that is perenially in the news for some new corruption or incompetence scandal, and a very very hit or miss reputation.
The point is that Medicare is a solid floor of service that we know works. People with good corporate insurance do better. Everyone else either qualifies for Medicare or they do significantly worse.
Virtually all of the putative working class republicans "opposed to government health care" would be better served by Medicare. Period.
Virtually all of the putative working class republicans "opposed to government health care" would be better served by Medicare. Period.
So if we get rid of Medicare, do you think private insurance would step into the gap and the elderly would then have better health care?
Sorry, I thought I was clear that the risk profile of the elderly precluded private insurance as being an option.
The elderly would get better care if more hospitals and doctors accepted it; there are several ways to achieve this with, I suspect, mixed results.
The elderly would get better care if more hospitals and doctors accepted it; there are several ways to achieve this with, I suspect, mixed results.
This is a way more difficult conversation to have with a reasonably informed person on the right than you are making it out to be...
The social security fund has been “borrowed from” to fund other programs.
The government is clearly in the pocket of big Parma.
The government uses taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street.
The government allocates subsidies based on lobbying groups.
The IRS specifically targeted right wing groups applying for non profit status.
The list goes on and on.
So people on the right are not keen to give that structure more money and power.
It doesn’t matter how successful you may think Medicare is. The power structure and track record of the entity which would manage universal healthcare is abysmal.
I think there is a way to do it which could make the whole program solid and resilient against abuse but the proposals all come from the left who don’t seem particularly interested in resiliency.
The social security fund has been “borrowed from” to fund other programs.
The government is clearly in the pocket of big Parma.
The government uses taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street.
The government allocates subsidies based on lobbying groups.
The IRS specifically targeted right wing groups applying for non profit status.
The list goes on and on.
So people on the right are not keen to give that structure more money and power.
It doesn’t matter how successful you may think Medicare is. The power structure and track record of the entity which would manage universal healthcare is abysmal.
I think there is a way to do it which could make the whole program solid and resilient against abuse but the proposals all come from the left who don’t seem particularly interested in resiliency.
Also, I really really wish we had a good universal healthcare system. Being unemployed and terrified of being injured sucks
[deleted]
>But the track record is poor, and there is such little transparency
What exactly are you talking about? Don’t republicans have a 40+ year strategy of “starve the beast” to purposely make government services worse specifically to build this distrust?
What exactly are you talking about? Don’t republicans have a 40+ year strategy of “starve the beast” to purposely make government services worse specifically to build this distrust?
I’ve noticed this as a major driver too. San Francisco has a per capita city+county budget that is almost 2x the typical. Yes every election is “we just need another $300M for this” and “our bond proposal to fund X”. But next year not much changed and they are asking for more again.
Reagan is not 'the right'. He's a member of the Republican party who served 50 years ago. And again, universal health care only saves money if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service, something that is very much not a right wing ideology.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea or a good idea, I'm just saying there is no basis for universal healthcare that doesn't start with 'we need to help people'. Same with social security. Same with many other left wing policies. A lot of the problems around market inefficiency in healthcare are perfectly solvable without helping the poor.
> if you start with the basis that the government will force private companies to take on customers that can't pay for service,
EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
EMTALA already does this and I don’t see a push on the right to repeal EMTALA. Universal healthcare is a more efficient model of what is already happening.
I also don't see a push from republicans to repeal social security. That doesn't mean it isn't a socialist policy.
Here:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-secur...
It wasn't sold as a push to repeal Social Security, because that polls extremely badly, but that's what it was.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-secur...
It wasn't sold as a push to repeal Social Security, because that polls extremely badly, but that's what it was.
Repealing social security has been a wink-wink, nudge-nudge part of the unspoken Republican platform since social security was created.
Are you saying EMTALA (people not left to die on the street) is socialism? I don’t think that meets the definition of socialism.
No, I'm saying something being supported (or at least not repealed) by republicans doesn't make it ideologically right wing. Republicans, like democrats, have a wide variety of beliefs in their platforms, both right and left.
Do you notice that you've defined your own viewpoint as rational and supported by data and the viewpoint of others as "probably focused around emotions"?
Thank you. No, the exact issue is that almost nobody notices that, regardless of political orientation.
What individuals believe seems _so_obviously_correct_ and what other people believe is _so_completely_ridiculous_ that we make up reasons for them being so... so... different than ourselves.
What individuals believe seems _so_obviously_correct_ and what other people believe is _so_completely_ridiculous_ that we make up reasons for them being so... so... different than ourselves.
This is a major issue today. People do not understand why people with different views hold the views they hold. There is an assumption that the other people are not data driven, are just emotional and cling to the way things used to be. I think one reason is the completely different lifestyles held by people. We have some people in urban / suburban areas and some some people in rural. So many people who do not live in rural areas have never even been to such an area for any extended period of time. They don't get to know the people or mentality thst comes with it.
Exactly this,
One thing that has stuck with me recently was a quote where it basically said that ‘everyone is skeptical, but just about different things’
One thing that has stuck with me recently was a quote where it basically said that ‘everyone is skeptical, but just about different things’
OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern.
I wish more people recognized that it is a tempting and lazy logical fallacy. It is fundamentally disrespectful to assume that people who don’t agree with you are too emotional. If you make this argument, you are killing your own argument, unless you support it with facts. OP demonstrates this uncharitability by asserting a lack of data, and then assuming emotions explain it. Go hang out with a more diverse crowd, OP. You are robbing yourself of life’s tapestry.
I wish more people recognized that it is a tempting and lazy logical fallacy. It is fundamentally disrespectful to assume that people who don’t agree with you are too emotional. If you make this argument, you are killing your own argument, unless you support it with facts. OP demonstrates this uncharitability by asserting a lack of data, and then assuming emotions explain it. Go hang out with a more diverse crowd, OP. You are robbing yourself of life’s tapestry.
> OP’s structure of argument should be a well established anti-pattern.
Agreed that accusing your opponent of not using facts or reason makes it hard to have an honest discussion.
At the very least, if reason and facts are so important to you, what about the fact that this style of argument is empirically ineffective, and almost never persuades anybody to switch views? It's even dangerous to your cause, in the sense that it makes people defensive and more extreme in their views. If you care about outcomes, don't poison the conversation.
I'm also skeptical whenever I see an argument that depends on the assumption that if you just had access to all the facts, you'd agree with me. In my experience, the more facts I learn about anything related to human behavior, the more complex the picture gets, and the less certain I am that anybody has it right.
Agreed that accusing your opponent of not using facts or reason makes it hard to have an honest discussion.
At the very least, if reason and facts are so important to you, what about the fact that this style of argument is empirically ineffective, and almost never persuades anybody to switch views? It's even dangerous to your cause, in the sense that it makes people defensive and more extreme in their views. If you care about outcomes, don't poison the conversation.
I'm also skeptical whenever I see an argument that depends on the assumption that if you just had access to all the facts, you'd agree with me. In my experience, the more facts I learn about anything related to human behavior, the more complex the picture gets, and the less certain I am that anybody has it right.
It's particularly troubling language because depending on who the subject is, the validity of the argument is often treated differently.
For example, If OP had made this argument about women I don't think we'd see so many upvotes on the comment and we'd see a lot more uproar. Despite the fact that women are routinely dismissed as being "emotional".
Here, OP presents that there is insufficient data to hop to conclusions. That said, OP still dismisses "conservatives" on the premise of acting purely on emotion. The irony seems lost on OP but also other HN viewers.
For example, If OP had made this argument about women I don't think we'd see so many upvotes on the comment and we'd see a lot more uproar. Despite the fact that women are routinely dismissed as being "emotional".
Here, OP presents that there is insufficient data to hop to conclusions. That said, OP still dismisses "conservatives" on the premise of acting purely on emotion. The irony seems lost on OP but also other HN viewers.
Do you have rational data that would present this viewpoint as otherwise? How about helping us liberals understand the conservative viewpoint better if you have insight on this.
Edit: please don't downvote based on disagreement - write something instead. This is a reasonable question asking to further understand the conservative viewpoint. Case in point, I'm upvoting buzzert's comments because they present a contrary, but interesting perspective.
Edit: please don't downvote based on disagreement - write something instead. This is a reasonable question asking to further understand the conservative viewpoint. Case in point, I'm upvoting buzzert's comments because they present a contrary, but interesting perspective.
One particular example might be Oregon’s decision to decriminalize all drugs[0] during a time when overdoses are at an all time high[1] and increasing over 40% in just the last year. You might say the political party who calls the war on drugs “cruel and inhumane” is acting on emotion rather than reason in spite of all the statistics.
[0]: https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/02/drug-decriminal...
[1]: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ERD/Pages/Oregon-trends-with-U.S....
[0]: https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/02/drug-decriminal...
[1]: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ERD/Pages/Oregon-trends-with-U.S....
If drugs have been criminalized for decades, and that has led to overdoses being at an all time high, isn’t that just a pretty strong point of evidence that criminalizing drugs isn’t an effective means to prevent overdoses?
We tried that strategy for many decades. It has failed as a strategy for decades. I don’t think that’s necessarily evidence that decriminalization will work, but it seems like...maybe we should at least try something else?
We tried that strategy for many decades. It has failed as a strategy for decades. I don’t think that’s necessarily evidence that decriminalization will work, but it seems like...maybe we should at least try something else?
Governments that have addressed drug use as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue, have shown good results.
If this is the direction Oregon is intending to go, it is certainly worth trying. But if it will just be an unstructured free-for-all I doubt it will result in any improvements.
If this is the direction Oregon is intending to go, it is certainly worth trying. But if it will just be an unstructured free-for-all I doubt it will result in any improvements.
> But if it will just be an unstructured free-for-all I doubt it will result in any improvements.
For a functioning addict, drugs not being illegal is itself an improvement, even if overdose rates stay completely unchanged.
When you have an addiction problem, getting the legal system involved typically results in you getting two problems around your neck, instead of just one.
For a functioning addict, drugs not being illegal is itself an improvement, even if overdose rates stay completely unchanged.
When you have an addiction problem, getting the legal system involved typically results in you getting two problems around your neck, instead of just one.
I’m not closely familiar with the Oregon legislation, but usually decriminalizing drugs is paired with those kinds of approaches, so I would be very surprised if that wasn’t the case with Oregon’s legislation.
Decriminalization is usually just a necessary prerequisite to make the medical approach practically workable. I’d expect most legislatures would avoid touching the decriminalization issue if they could.
Decriminalization is usually just a necessary prerequisite to make the medical approach practically workable. I’d expect most legislatures would avoid touching the decriminalization issue if they could.
“Try something else”, as in the complete polar opposite of what we were trying before? I cannot rationalize such a decision.
We tried a strategy. All evidence point to that strategy being a complete failure at accomplishing any of its goals.
Yes, let’s try a different strategy. Yes, that different strategy might be the opposite of the thing we were trying before. That’s because the thing we were trying before has failed in almost every metric for decades (including drug overdose deaths, as you’ve noted).
Honestly, I genuinely don’t know how one could rationalize preserving the existing strategy. Can you explain the desire to continue applying the same failed strategy? What’s the logical argument for continuing to do the same thing?
Yes, let’s try a different strategy. Yes, that different strategy might be the opposite of the thing we were trying before. That’s because the thing we were trying before has failed in almost every metric for decades (including drug overdose deaths, as you’ve noted).
Honestly, I genuinely don’t know how one could rationalize preserving the existing strategy. Can you explain the desire to continue applying the same failed strategy? What’s the logical argument for continuing to do the same thing?
We tried prohibition of alcohol for a time, and then rolled that back when it was obvious that the experiment failed.
Decriminalization has its own issues, to be sure. I'd prefer legalization (the actual polar opposite). I want addicts to be able to buy a clean supply from a legitimate business. The US won't see a reduction in organized crime until we offer a path to legitimacy. Decriminalization is the easiest, but least effective middle ground.
Decriminalization has its own issues, to be sure. I'd prefer legalization (the actual polar opposite). I want addicts to be able to buy a clean supply from a legitimate business. The US won't see a reduction in organized crime until we offer a path to legitimacy. Decriminalization is the easiest, but least effective middle ground.
What would you do instead?
In my city (San Francisco), the Tenderloin is nationally famous for having an "open-air drug market", which means a place you can go to _buy_ drugs with impunity. It also happens to be one of the most dystopian parts of the city, rampent with crime, overdoses, unsanitary conditions, and needles everywhere.
It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.
Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin. What I would do instead is precisely what I would do if my children were addicted to drugs; tough love. I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.
Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
> It seems like any rational person could see the connection between drugs and the dystopian aspects of the Tenderloin.
There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique.
>Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).
There seems to be a correlation vs causation issue there though. An equally plausible rational explanation is that the criminal act of selling drugs tends to make more sense in a place where that act is overlooked. If drug sales were decriminalized then those areas would tend to be less focused. Case in point is the proliferation of legal marijuana dispensaries. At least in the places that I've seen these (in Seattle), they don't seem to induce a higher criminal / unsanitary / dystopian atmosphere. Perhaps my perspective is unique.
>Japan and Singapore are examples of countries that are extremely tough on drugs. I believe it is no coincidence that these places also turned out to be essentially the opposite of the Tenderloin with regards to public safety and heigene.
Yes, and Singapore's approach still regards possession / use as a medical with an initial focus on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Singapore has some pretty big advantages over the US in its administration of the law (single jurisdiction / set of laws, single highly populous city). The laws vary widely in the US (consider Marijuana legalization an obvious example).
> I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs and deal with the consequences of withdrawl.
Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
Depending on the drug and the severity of their addiction, that could kill them. Would you take it that far?
Absolutely not, but we have tools at our disposal for that as well (Methadone comes to mind).
Good! You're most of the way to a rational and compassionate response to drug addiction. Let's see if we can get you further.
Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there.
The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident.
So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border.
This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts.
All in all, pretty big win.
Methadone maintenance therapy leaves several problems, starting with the fact that other opioids still feel good and are still being profitably sold on the street. There's supply and demand, right there.
The illegality makes it expensive. Most opioid users start with pills, and continue to injection because heroin and analogues are expensive, and injection works better. Unfortunately it's also a much better way to kill yourself, as is taking what you think is one drug (such as heroin) and lacing it with a stronger one (such as fentanyl). It's possible to kill yourself with a bunch of pills of a known opioid of a guaranteed strength, but it's pretty tough to do by accident.
So let's remove the profit motive, by letting the state take over the sale of opioids. No advertising, of course, and this is done in settings where help can be made available to anyone who wants to quit being addicted to drugs. Make it expensive enough that it isn't the cheapest way to have a good time (opioids cost basis is very low), but not so high that constant petty crime is the only way to stay high. Limit purchase quantities; maybe give known addicts a license, so they can have a slightly higher limit to account for their tolerance. A little bit will leak onto the street, sure, that's tolerable compared to a hundred kilos at once arriving from overseas or the southern border.
This puts the dealers out of business, clears out the Tenderloin, reduces opioid overdoses, puts addicts where they can get help, and reduces the burden on our overcrowded prisons. Evidence from Switzerland and Portugal suggest that over time it will also reduce the number of opioid addicts.
All in all, pretty big win.
Having known somebody on methadone... it's not great. It's just as addictive as heroin, but instead of making you feel good, it makes you feel like shit. And then if you don't take the drug that makes you feel like shit, you go into withdrawal again.
If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed
> I would make it impossible for them to acquire drugs
But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs.
And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way."
I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
But how? Drugs are already illegal. There is currently a vast government apparatus designed to make drugs impossible to acquire. The US has the largest prison population on the planet due in no small part to the war on drugs. It's not like we go easy on drugs.
And yet, in your city there is an "open-air drug market". Making drugs illegal doesn't make drugs harder to get, because drugs are profitable. To paraphrase Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park "drugs will find a way."
I think you're noticing a correlation and labeling it a causation. If people had a place to safely do drugs, would they be overdosing in the street? If SF had more public restrooms would people defecate in the streets? If the city had more affordable housing would people be living in the streets? If people had access to jobs so they could earn a living, would they be committing crimes? You blame the drugs for the problems, but I see them as a symptom of larger societal causes.
> But how? Drugs are already illegal.
Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc.
Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue.
Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc.
Both sides have their political bugaboos about problems that haven't been completely solved by existing approaches. Both sides want to try something different by cracking down on their own citizens; both sides want to try something different by lessening the burdens on good people who don't hurt others. Unfortunately, the two major political parties take opposite positions on which approach to take with which issue.
Maybe our political discourse wouldn't get quite to the level of talking about secession if we tried to understand one another's values a little better.
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with guns? I don't think anyone in this thread brought up guns at all.
They are providing an example of another situation that has been difficult as the two parties can take polar opposite positions on (1) whether something is an issue, and (2) how to solve that issue, often without understanding each other's view point and how they came to that view point.
I see the outside reference fitting here.
I see the outside reference fitting here.
Except that the evidence mostly points towards harsh drug laws having a net negative effect on people's lives. The logic of "drugs are bad" -> "we should outlaw drugs" without looking at the real world effects is the more emotion based argument.
So the current system with drugs being illegal leads to an all time high of overdoses, but you suggest a switch to a different approach is timed badly? Yes, I do think going the opposite route of the one causing record levels of overdoses is a good start.
I have a hard time following your line of thought.
I have a hard time following your line of thought.
The war on drugs put people in prison for emotional belief those people were morally inferior.
It rightly so should be abolished.
To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments.
But the fundies, acting out of emotion, prefer boxes.
It’s all emotion since humans are motivated by such. It’s the outcome that should be judged.
It rightly so should be abolished.
To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments.
But the fundies, acting out of emotion, prefer boxes.
It’s all emotion since humans are motivated by such. It’s the outcome that should be judged.
> To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments
Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
Also it doesn’t help your position by using childish words like “fundies”, FYI. Keep that on Reddit please.
Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
Also it doesn’t help your position by using childish words like “fundies”, FYI. Keep that on Reddit please.
> Why can’t these programs exist while also having drugs be illegal?
How would you make that work? Consider if drugs are illegal, then getting medical help / detox requires admission of guilt. This seems like a fifth amendment problem.
How would you make that work? Consider if drugs are illegal, then getting medical help / detox requires admission of guilt. This seems like a fifth amendment problem.
Why should you have to admit anything to get treatment? Is that some kind of medical requirement I’m unaware of?
How should a doctor know how to treat you if you don't tell them what caused the problems? Doctors don't just hear you list a bunch of things you are "feeling" as symptoms and then output a pill to take. They need to look at your overall health, wellbeing, symptoms, medicine you are taking, diet, etc.
You can't just show up to a hospital with crack or heroin withdrawl and be like "I don't feel well, please help me". They are going to ask why you don't feel well.
You can't just show up to a hospital with crack or heroin withdrawl and be like "I don't feel well, please help me". They are going to ask why you don't feel well.
I'm talking just human nature here. If something is forbidden , illegal, subjectively immoral, etc. then it's difficult to both admit and seek help with that thing. I don't have any data to hand to back my assertion that criminalization negatively affects treatment, however if such data exists, then it would be less surprising (to me) than the inverse (criminalization makes it easier to get treatment).
Why must drugs be illegal?
Is it everyone else’s responsibility to protect you and your sensibilities?
It hasn’t prevented folks from consuming them, or becoming addicted.
If I’m childish for the use of a euphemism, what would you call living in an idealized reality that’s never existed?
Is it everyone else’s responsibility to protect you and your sensibilities?
It hasn’t prevented folks from consuming them, or becoming addicted.
If I’m childish for the use of a euphemism, what would you call living in an idealized reality that’s never existed?
This is why we can't have a rational conversation; your very first point was to link two statistics in a misleading way. You immediately imply that enforcement of drug laws is connected to the number of overdoses. However anyone can see that both overdose and enforcement have increased over time.
Is there evidence that criminalizing drugs decreases the incidence of addiction/overdose?
The idea that treating drug problems with criminal punishment rather than medical care is effective for solving the drug overdose problem without data to back that viewpoint sounds more emotionally driven than the converse view. I'd anticipate that we would both agree that the former has provably not worked, it's time to give the latter a chance.
> decriminalize all drugs[0] during a time when overdoses are at an all time high[1] and increasing over 40% in just the last year.
You're assuming overdose rates are negatively correlated with criminalization of drugs. Have you considered the possibility that it's exactly the opposite, then when drugs are decriminalized, people can have access to better information and health care?
If you're a professional and you have alcoholism, you can get care and treatment, and it may even be paid for by your employer's health care plant. If you're addicted to cocaine, OxyContin, hydrocodone, or amphetamines, then maybe one day you OD because you never talk about it and you don't see a doctor about it, for fear of being convicted of a crime, losing your job, your health care, and ending up in prison or homeless.
You're assuming overdose rates are negatively correlated with criminalization of drugs. Have you considered the possibility that it's exactly the opposite, then when drugs are decriminalized, people can have access to better information and health care?
If you're a professional and you have alcoholism, you can get care and treatment, and it may even be paid for by your employer's health care plant. If you're addicted to cocaine, OxyContin, hydrocodone, or amphetamines, then maybe one day you OD because you never talk about it and you don't see a doctor about it, for fear of being convicted of a crime, losing your job, your health care, and ending up in prison or homeless.
I've never heard of a company accepting and paying for alcohol treatment? It's 100% fire rate in my opinion.
Most health plans will cover at least a portion of substance abuse treatment. Things like HIPAA are there to keep your employer out of your business. You might be surprised how many of your co-workers have been through some kind of substance abuse program.
> then maybe one day you OD because you never talk about it
And also because the substances you're consuming aren't subject to the vast array of safety mechanisms that exist for all other pharmaceuticals. You don't have anywhere near the same level of quality guarantees.
Compared to the synthesis and purification of complex organics, the distillation of ethanol is difficult to mess up. People still died of poisoning during prohibition though.
And also because the substances you're consuming aren't subject to the vast array of safety mechanisms that exist for all other pharmaceuticals. You don't have anywhere near the same level of quality guarantees.
Compared to the synthesis and purification of complex organics, the distillation of ethanol is difficult to mess up. People still died of poisoning during prohibition though.
Anyone who genuinely wants fewer people to die from drug use will support drug legalization.
I don't think decriminalizing drug use was a strictly liberal policy. That had support from large parts of the right.
Where the right and left differed was in all the programs treating drug addiction that were brought in at the same time. Pamper the poor darlings vs Let them rot in the gutter.
Where the right and left differed was in all the programs treating drug addiction that were brought in at the same time. Pamper the poor darlings vs Let them rot in the gutter.
Another _could_ be letting people in Portland tear the city apart with impunity.
For most folks in Portland, pandemic aside, it’s been life as usual.
I have yet to encounter lefties in my SE hood terrorizing anyone.
Plenty of Trump caravans last year, waking us up, shooting guns.
All from outside the city.
Sure violence is up but it’s up all over. A side effect of a nation coddling old wealth, leaving the masses to rot.
I have yet to encounter lefties in my SE hood terrorizing anyone.
Plenty of Trump caravans last year, waking us up, shooting guns.
All from outside the city.
Sure violence is up but it’s up all over. A side effect of a nation coddling old wealth, leaving the masses to rot.
[deleted]
Then the media is utterly and in conspiracy theory fashion lying about the situation on a daily basis. I’m not saying that’s not the case, just that it’s not the message the rest of us are getting, maybe and including these counties wanting out.
Yes they are obviously lying.
>Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work.
Given the metastasizing of the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sections of the economy, and their typical concentration in urban areas, I'd say that rural areas are basically in the same position as a colony to a colonial power.
Shipping cheap raw materials to the cities, who in turn own the shares, banks, and mortgages, has always been pretty common.
Of course, if you are in favor of colonialism....
Given the metastasizing of the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sections of the economy, and their typical concentration in urban areas, I'd say that rural areas are basically in the same position as a colony to a colonial power.
Shipping cheap raw materials to the cities, who in turn own the shares, banks, and mortgages, has always been pretty common.
Of course, if you are in favor of colonialism....
A different lens to view this through has to do with economic and population shifts over the last century. Specifically the huge increase in agricultural productivity.
"In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent." [1]
That's a large erosion of political and economic power in those rural areas as more people moved out of agriculture into other industries that tend to be located in population centers. Not sure how that changes unless we move away from large corporate farms back to smaller family farms (See various Wendall Berry essays and novels where he lays out what's happened to rural areas over the last century as family farms have dwindled), however, that seems very unlikely.
[1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...
"In 1900, just under 40 percent of the total US population lived on farms, and 60 percent lived in rural areas. Today, the respective figures are only about 1 percent and 20 percent." [1]
That's a large erosion of political and economic power in those rural areas as more people moved out of agriculture into other industries that tend to be located in population centers. Not sure how that changes unless we move away from large corporate farms back to smaller family farms (See various Wendall Berry essays and novels where he lays out what's happened to rural areas over the last century as family farms have dwindled), however, that seems very unlikely.
[1] http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/6/26/the-evolution-of-americ...
The current definition of what is urban vs rural is very shaky. I don't think when theses numbers are brought up there is an understanding of what counted as rural then and what counts as rural now.
In addition there's urban and there's urban.
Remove the imperial capitals (DC or London) or financial capitals (London or New York) and the next tier down ain't so much.
Remove the imperial capitals (DC or London) or financial capitals (London or New York) and the next tier down ain't so much.
Note that this movement isn’t recent and I think I’d traced to the proposed state of Jefferson[1] (in the NorCal, south and east Oregon areas), which was going to get a vote in Congress but WWII got in the way and never happened. It comes up from time to time; you’ll see banners for it in rural areas.
So it should not be framed as a pushback to current politics. They feel they’ve had reasons for a while.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_...
So it should not be framed as a pushback to current politics. They feel they’ve had reasons for a while.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_...
You can trace it all the way back to the Mormons and their idea of the State of Deseret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Deseret
The biggest driving factor is overexposure to news & social media which convinces otherwise well-off and content people that the "other side" is out to destroy their lives, so they must do something about it.
You can understand what's going on in eastern Oregon (and Idaho and Nevada) a bit better with some background. It's not especially about taxes. https://longreads.com/bundyville/season-one/
I think a lot of the momentum of the right is around the view that the left wants to take away their freedoms and make a big nanny state where big brother knows best. To a degree this is probably driven by the fact that due to “urban” areas having denser populations, and thus requireing more rules to keep people from stepping all over each other. The rural sees this and says get off my lawn, I don’t want your rules here. (Guns, taxes, envy concerns, business law, etc etc)
I see this as one place where the far right comes from, but by no means does this encompass everything.
I see this as one place where the far right comes from, but by no means does this encompass everything.
Or maybe you are the one that doesn’t understand their situation. These are government professionals that live and work there, and are intimately involved with all of the legal proceedings between county and state.
You called them out as ignorant, and provided zero facts to back it up. Now let’s hear your credentials and experience with regional government in the rural Pacific Northwest.
And wouldn’t it be great if there were GAO reports on where every collected tax dollar is spent. Maybe if you had that, you would be able to address this with facts instead of your assumption that you must be right because you are smarter than them, and that means you don’t need facts to know you are right.
But given that you have presented zero facts, and zero experience, and may actually benefit from disinformation, I’m going to go with the opinions of the people that have all the facts, and all the experience, and actually have to pay the cost of their decision.
But instead of psychoanalyzing them, let’s hear your opinion on a simple yes/no question:
Should they be allowed to exit?
You called them out as ignorant, and provided zero facts to back it up. Now let’s hear your credentials and experience with regional government in the rural Pacific Northwest.
And wouldn’t it be great if there were GAO reports on where every collected tax dollar is spent. Maybe if you had that, you would be able to address this with facts instead of your assumption that you must be right because you are smarter than them, and that means you don’t need facts to know you are right.
But given that you have presented zero facts, and zero experience, and may actually benefit from disinformation, I’m going to go with the opinions of the people that have all the facts, and all the experience, and actually have to pay the cost of their decision.
But instead of psychoanalyzing them, let’s hear your opinion on a simple yes/no question:
Should they be allowed to exit?
The last 30 years in Oregon, Both D's and R's have dis-empowered rural communities (Bill Sizemore comes to mind).
The cultural assumptions present in rural Oregon, Suburban Oregon, and Portland are vast. Go out to Christmas Valley. Go there. Then walk around the Pearl district in Portland.
You're trying to use pure reason. Go get some experience.
The cultural assumptions present in rural Oregon, Suburban Oregon, and Portland are vast. Go out to Christmas Valley. Go there. Then walk around the Pearl district in Portland.
You're trying to use pure reason. Go get some experience.
What if your assumption, that tax dollars go toward a greater good, is shown to be wrong?
Let alone the difficulty of tracing it: assume it’s possible to show where every tax dollar went.
Would you still favor this trnsparency if it’s shown to sometimes benefit individual politicians at the expense of their would be constituents? Just hypothetically?
Let alone the difficulty of tracing it: assume it’s possible to show where every tax dollar went.
Would you still favor this trnsparency if it’s shown to sometimes benefit individual politicians at the expense of their would be constituents? Just hypothetically?
> What if your assumption, that tax dollars go toward a greater good, is shown to be wrong?
Wouldn't we call that a success? You can't fix something that isn't measured. If nobody knows anything concrete then all people have to go on is vague feelings.
Wouldn't we call that a success? You can't fix something that isn't measured. If nobody knows anything concrete then all people have to go on is vague feelings.
Would you still favor this trnsparency [sp] if it’s shown to sometimes benefit individual politicians at the expense of their would be constituents?
Just Devil's Advocate, but wouldn't that be the best outcome? If it showed to which company every tax dollar went. Who the principals are in those companies. And the connections those principals have to politicians allocating the dollars?
Especially if it showed this for every dollar, I'm finding it hard to see a downside. Am I missing something?
Just Devil's Advocate, but wouldn't that be the best outcome? If it showed to which company every tax dollar went. Who the principals are in those companies. And the connections those principals have to politicians allocating the dollars?
Especially if it showed this for every dollar, I'm finding it hard to see a downside. Am I missing something?
"Though I find understanding the deeply divided viewpoints in the US very elusive."
It's not a big mystery. A lot of politicians are making their careers by dividing people.
Some policies are just downright mean, and seem to serve little purpose other than division.
Conservative/rural people are often on the receiving end, because they just don't have a large enough constituency to fight it. Sure, they are winning some battles, but each one is uphill and the slope is steepening rapidly.
Sadly, the country will suffer greatly. The left is wrong on a lot of things (or at least too extreme), but they are in control and there will be little pushback going forward. Even moderate democrats are being trampled.
It's not a big mystery. A lot of politicians are making their careers by dividing people.
Some policies are just downright mean, and seem to serve little purpose other than division.
Conservative/rural people are often on the receiving end, because they just don't have a large enough constituency to fight it. Sure, they are winning some battles, but each one is uphill and the slope is steepening rapidly.
Sadly, the country will suffer greatly. The left is wrong on a lot of things (or at least too extreme), but they are in control and there will be little pushback going forward. Even moderate democrats are being trampled.
What are some things that are too extreme? And what are they extreme in relationship to?
> Of particular interest would be trying to categorize areas with positive or negative contributions to a person's or region's productivity
Having a map which highlight regions which has a negative balance sheet in terms of taxes vs government costs would mostly just be a map of segregation of class, which in turn would be a map showing segregation of different demographics. Illustrating which demographics are costing the government more than they pay in taxes is not something the left in my country are very happy to do, and I doubt it is that much different in the USA.
Having a map which highlight regions which has a negative balance sheet in terms of taxes vs government costs would mostly just be a map of segregation of class, which in turn would be a map showing segregation of different demographics. Illustrating which demographics are costing the government more than they pay in taxes is not something the left in my country are very happy to do, and I doubt it is that much different in the USA.
What a patronizing take. No wonder they want to leave, if they’re governed by people with your attitude.
You're being downvoted because your statement is a bit inflammatory and leaps to condemnation. However, it is otherwise a very accurate take in my opinion. OP has presented their view as inherently rational, correct, and moral, and presented conservative views as "emotional" or "lacking understanding". That type of moral assertion absolutely IS one of the main complaints I see from rural conservatives about urban liberals.
> Though I find understanding the deeply divided viewpoints in the US very elusive.
Self induced tribalism.
Self induced tribalism.
It is always about power.
No reason to make it so complicated.
No reason to make it so complicated.
Not to understand the benefits of buying in bulk and enriching the commons - what can one say about such people! But at least you do.
mrcartmenez(2)
Having good information accessibly presented is helpful but when local news outlets are owned by Sinclair Media[1] and Fox News is the most watched cable outlet for the conservatives that live there the facts really don't matter.
We can bend over backwards to explain how helpful the valley is to them but it's going to fall on ears which don't want to listen.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be provided for, they 100% should, just them actually leaving will do more to show them the inefficiencies of a conservative super state.
Short of that the most effective way to change the information disconnect is actually address the source of the issue: media.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Polit...
We can bend over backwards to explain how helpful the valley is to them but it's going to fall on ears which don't want to listen.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be provided for, they 100% should, just them actually leaving will do more to show them the inefficiencies of a conservative super state.
Short of that the most effective way to change the information disconnect is actually address the source of the issue: media.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Polit...
[deleted]
Why would you spend so much time writing so much about people who you admitted to knowing nothing about? Go visit rural America. Talk to people. Getting upvotes on Hacker News for presumptuous rants is no way to actually learn what’s happening.
I think Covid is driving a great deal of this division now. People in rural Oregon see red states like Idaho almost entirely back to normal, without the promised piles of dead bodies in the streets, and feel like they could have that for themselves if not for Governor Kate Brown and the state's ridiculous protocols and mandates, which even include masking for outdoor youth sports.
A town in Vermont voted multiple times to join New Hampshire. It unsurprisingly never happened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secessio...
The Upper Valley in western NH (where I'm from) also kind of seceded to Vermont for a short while:
https://www.flowofhistory.org/the-rebellion-in-western-new-h...
https://www.flowofhistory.org/the-rebellion-in-western-new-h...
Another weird border situation played out in the "Oblong" where a botched Colonial land survey created a kind of no-man's land between New York State, Connecticut, and the southwest corner of Massachusetts. How it got resolved related to an utterly bizarre incident in the 1850s.
https://anchor.fm/lostmass/episodes/The-Lost-Corner-AKA-Hell...
https://anchor.fm/lostmass/episodes/The-Lost-Corner-AKA-Hell...
Michigan and Ohio once went to war over Toledo.
Each tried to make the other take it....
Little known fact: the bullet holes from that skirmish is where we get the phrase “Holy Toledo”.
That's so interesting. Killington is the site of the largest ski resort in the East (by most measures) and an awesome vacation spot. It is completely in the center of Vermont, almost the geographic center. Moving to New Hampshire is a hilarious idea, one expressly forbidden -- states cannot be non-contiguous like that, land areas can only be separated by water (see Michigan).
Good old Act 60.
The US constitution requires that, for this to happen, Congress, the Oregon legislature, and the Idaho legislature must all agree. There's no provision that it is a matter that local country residents get to decide.
Would Oregon necessarily be against this? This seems like a great way to (a) get rid of nut jobs from the state legislature, and (b) get rid of a bunch of counties that sinkholes (financially speaking).
You’re being downvoted, but living in Oregon I don’t really see the problem. I’m not really attached to borders and I’m trying to understand why other people are. It is an aspect of political science I’d like to know more about if people have useful sources.
It's pretty messy and would need to have some constitutional support drawn up. E.g. you probably wouldn't do it by county per se, it might be better to make it work by congressional district.
County borders make much more sense. Congressional district boundaries change much more often. They also mean nothing to people in terms of their geographic identity. No one says, "Oh yeah, I live over in the 13th District."
A properly drawn congressional boundary should have a predictable number of citizens, however. Arbitrarily choosing county boundaries (and why county boundaries instead of some other method?) would probably upset the balance of population and require reallocation of representatives. Or maybe the price of seceding from your state is that you don't get to take the representation with you and therefore must wait until the next census to clear it up.
I mean, stuff like school board and police departments are often organized by county, no?
Honestly I see this failing in Oregon not because anyone is particularly against it, but because the Republicans in the state legislature have no power and the issue would never be brought to the floor.
True.
But for the sake of argument, say they somehow can. What then? Would they actually go through with it?
I suppose it goes to their own personal careers. Would they have a better chance of personal success in the new Idaho legislatures or in the current Oregon one?
Seeing that the population of Oregon is 4.2M and the new Idaho would be relatively unchanged at 1.7M (these counties combine to 0.06M people), I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state. Whatever the new districts of new Idaho would be, these new-comers would still be a small fraction of the legislature.
The only way I can see that they would have better careers in new Idaho would be in national politics. And then they have to fight amongst each other and the old Idaho politicians, all of whom would be jealous at the attention these new-comers would have. Unless one of them is especially gifted/lucky, I'm not seeing that as a high likelihood.
But for the sake of argument, say they somehow can. What then? Would they actually go through with it?
I suppose it goes to their own personal careers. Would they have a better chance of personal success in the new Idaho legislatures or in the current Oregon one?
Seeing that the population of Oregon is 4.2M and the new Idaho would be relatively unchanged at 1.7M (these counties combine to 0.06M people), I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state. Whatever the new districts of new Idaho would be, these new-comers would still be a small fraction of the legislature.
The only way I can see that they would have better careers in new Idaho would be in national politics. And then they have to fight amongst each other and the old Idaho politicians, all of whom would be jealous at the attention these new-comers would have. Unless one of them is especially gifted/lucky, I'm not seeing that as a high likelihood.
> I'd suppose they would want to stay with Oregon as the prestige and career flexibility would be greater in a more populous and richer state
I don't think this really tracks. Being a minority state legislator sucks; you're basically completely ignored. I think most politicians would much rather be in the majority party in a smaller state than a minority in a larger state.
I don't think this really tracks. Being a minority state legislator sucks; you're basically completely ignored. I think most politicians would much rather be in the majority party in a smaller state than a minority in a larger state.
> Would Oregon necessarily be against this?
Yes, Western/urban/blue Oregon is against this. I don't think there's a simple self-interest-based reason like "we would lose X if they left," but it is considered an unserious idea, would involve large-but-not-well-understood costs, and there's no reason to do it.
Yes, Western/urban/blue Oregon is against this. I don't think there's a simple self-interest-based reason like "we would lose X if they left," but it is considered an unserious idea, would involve large-but-not-well-understood costs, and there's no reason to do it.
But what would the cost be to those western Oregonians? I just feel like in their position I’d be tempted to say “don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”
I just meant the general bureaucratic cost of effecting such a change, but I probably shouldn't have mentioned cost as I don't think it's a big factor in the general opposition to the idea. You're right that it wouldn't cost any of us much of anything directly, and some western Oregonians probably do feel that way, especially about Malheur Co, which is more or less synonymous with nationalist terrorism.
But I would guess a more common opinion is opposed, and I think it's more that it's not taken very seriously due to the lack precedent and the political impossibility than that it's fiercely opposed.
But I would guess a more common opinion is opposed, and I think it's more that it's not taken very seriously due to the lack precedent and the political impossibility than that it's fiercely opposed.
Considering that the impacted region has a lot of forestry, there are environmental concerns with how they will protect the land in their new state's regulatory system.
Most of these forests are owned by the federal government. Oregon owns less than half of its land.
So it's about maintaining jurisdiction/control?
Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?
Wouldn't Idaho be capable of regulating that stuff?
[deleted]
You are of the opinion that the "nut jobs" in Oregon are not currently residing in Portland, attempting to burn down federal courthouses for hundreds of days at a time?
There were several incidents involving a fire near the federal courthouse in Portland, but not "for hundreds of days at a time" and reports also indicate that in at least some cases the fires were on the pavement and were not attempts to burn down the courthouse. You could argue that the people who set them are nut jobs, but they don't represent the majority of Portland residents, even more than the Proud Boys who regularly invade Portland looking for hippies and antifa people to beat up are the majority.
Fox News reports the same dumpster fire each night (often just reusing video footage each day), I’m not sure how serious they are if they are aiming to burn down the courthouse. Yes, dumpster fires are illegal and those starting them should be punished, but it’s a stretch to say they are trying to burn down the courthouse.
I don't watch Fox News, wouldn't know. But you're under the impression that the illiberal black bloc collectives do not exist in any serious capacity in Portland?
They do exist, but their numbers and impact is overblown for propaganda reasons on the right.
Numbers being overblown? The protests from the left which have dominated the public consciousness have been motivated around the idea that unarmed black people are being killed en masse by the police, a fate literally less likely to happen than a person being struck by lightning. Please explain to me how you determine what exactly constitutes numbers being overblown for propaganda purposes.
The [to-be-]seceding counties are strongly in opposition to the currently governing policies in Oregon, so it's quite expected that they (i.e. Oregon government and the petitioners) perceive each other as "nut jobs".
Or he just knows what this audience would prefer to hear.
I believe an important first step would be to gauge the support of the constituents in the move before deciding to move without their voice.
[deleted]
Time for a constitutional amendment to curb non-consensual government. State and federal government should have a generational opt in.
We have have that every two years: it’s called elections.
Half of the country is pissed no matter who wins. Imagine being born married and no option for divorce.
If every state is gerrymandered beyond all sanity, are any of our elections valid?
Elections for senators and governors are, or at least are more valid: no electoral college and no gerrymandering of districts. Of course, vote suppression is still there, and simply lying, but it's an improvement.
Governors, yes. Senators: Wyoming gets 2 (500k people), California gets 2 (40M people). Rural people are hugely represented. Statehood for DC would help a bit with the rural/urban imbalance.
I'm guessing it would be less intrusive to adjust the district boundary process to try and reduce gerrymandering. And perhaps adjusting the voting process to something more reflective of values than first-past-the-post.
Redrawing state boundaries is a much bigger deal.
Redrawing state boundaries is a much bigger deal.
Also, not all states are equally gerrymandered. Vermont and Wyoming each have a single representative, so they have no electoral boundaries to manipulate. And California uses a non-partisan electoral commission to adjust electoral boundaries. In states where redistricting is still a partisan process it is not all equally shameless.
States are typically gerrymandered on the state representation (state legislature) level as well as with federal congressional districts.
I suppose they wouldn’t be if your entire electoral profit and loss statement comes down to one seat in the goddamned House of Representatives and we are all slaves to lines on a map because those lines, those lines are destiny.
But srswtf123, seriously, wtf? You tell me how many offices you were asked to fill in the last ballot you filled out and how many completely asinine laws you were asked to vote yes or no on. Constitutional amendments are two points if you got any of those on your ballot. In my neck of the woods, the locals love sticking complete crap in our constitution to keep it outside the reach of State courts.
But srswtf123, seriously, wtf? You tell me how many offices you were asked to fill in the last ballot you filled out and how many completely asinine laws you were asked to vote yes or no on. Constitutional amendments are two points if you got any of those on your ballot. In my neck of the woods, the locals love sticking complete crap in our constitution to keep it outside the reach of State courts.
MA few states don’t practice gerrymandering; eg Washington and California both use non partisan or bi-partisan redistricting committees (so legislative majorities don’t matter).
I don't see why Oregon would object unless there is some industry out there that is paying megabucks in taxes.
Dumping a bunch of people sucking down more money than they pay seems like a win for Oregon.
Idaho, on the other hand, might object. That would be comedy gold.
"We secede." "Congratulations! Good luck finding somebody who wants you, though."
Dumping a bunch of people sucking down more money than they pay seems like a win for Oregon.
Idaho, on the other hand, might object. That would be comedy gold.
"We secede." "Congratulations! Good luck finding somebody who wants you, though."
Well for one, House representatives are apportioned based on population.
Is there enough population in these counties to make any difference?
That's fine, it doesn't matter what state the representative is associated with, and baring rounding errors the number of representatives would stay roughly the same?
The more worrisome effect is on the electoral college and the senate, but I think tying this to DC statehood would get rid of that.
The more worrisome effect is on the electoral college and the senate, but I think tying this to DC statehood would get rid of that.
> it doesn't matter what state the representative is associated with, and baring rounding errors the number of representatives would stay roughly the same?
The [Republican] Idaho legislature would get to gerrymand the districts instead of the [Democratic] Oregon legislature.
The [Republican] Idaho legislature would get to gerrymand the districts instead of the [Democratic] Oregon legislature.
Fair point I didn't think that far. But now as I do, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho%27s_congressional_distri... they are all Republican by wide margin already, so there's no real gerrymandering to do.
[deleted]
It sets a bad precedent. Any county can just vote to break off into another state due to political reasons or to form their own state? Either one party will use that to their advantage and disallow the other party from doing the same, or every state will devolve into fragments. Why stop at counties? Why can't zip codes choose the grouping that best represents them too?
I fail to see how this would be a 'bad precedent' or 'problem'. Why is keeping arbitrary borders established over a hundred years ago more important than better representation and sortition?
The balance of seats in the Senate
>" The balance of seats in the Senate "
Do you mean the House? I think the Senate would still have 2 senators per state, and state-level electoral results are unlikely to change if an alienated minority from one state secedes, in favor of joining a more (politically) similar state.
Do you mean the House? I think the Senate would still have 2 senators per state, and state-level electoral results are unlikely to change if an alienated minority from one state secedes, in favor of joining a more (politically) similar state.
I'd imagine a common theme would be for red counties in deep blue states to leave and join their light blue neighbors, which may shift them red. (Or vice versa.)
For example if upstate NY joined Pennsylvania, then the D senator from PA would very likely lose. Or if (Republican-leaning) inland California joined Nevada, then Nevada would probably tip red. Or maybe (heavily blue) Jacksonville and Gainesville get fed up with DeSantis, and leave Florida for Georgia, cementing GA as a solid blue state.
For example if upstate NY joined Pennsylvania, then the D senator from PA would very likely lose. Or if (Republican-leaning) inland California joined Nevada, then Nevada would probably tip red. Or maybe (heavily blue) Jacksonville and Gainesville get fed up with DeSantis, and leave Florida for Georgia, cementing GA as a solid blue state.
what makes you think there light blue neighbor would have them?
What happens when you get down to the last county and they also want to join another state?
If there were a one-county state, it would benefit from so much graft that they'd never join anyone else. Imagine having two senators, one congressman, and three electoral votes, all in one county! Every presidential candidate would stop there and promise them the moon!
I imagine the first time a county successfully split to join another state, a lot of states would just abolish counties altogether. Then everyone can be in a one-county state...
Rhode Island is close enough and mostly doesn't get paid much attention.
[deleted]
> Any county can just vote to break off into another state due to political reasons or to form their own state?
While your question is still an interesting thought experiment, it is worth noting that OP was referring to counties moving between two existing states, not counties seceding a former a _new_ state, which would certainly have different ramifications.
While your question is still an interesting thought experiment, it is worth noting that OP was referring to counties moving between two existing states, not counties seceding a former a _new_ state, which would certainly have different ramifications.
There has been an idea of the west coast states seceding from the Union to form a new country (Cascadia) for quite some time. Though I imagine it’d be a more narrow strip than the whole of Oregon, Washington, and California.
It's a natural next step. It's hardly a slippery slope argumentative fallacy to suggest the precedent would extend to a logical next step.
And are counties only allowed to do it if they are contiguous with their desired state?
And are counties only allowed to do it if they are contiguous with their desired state?
Well, the precedent would not be binding in any way - the precedent is that everyone (Oregon,Idaho,Congress) must agree, so any of them can veto for any arbitrary reason, and Oregon agreeing on these particular counties going to Idaho does not mean they would or should accept any other cases just because they vote so.
One of the things I periodically mentally noodle with is, what would the world look like if it was a lot easier for units to choose what larger units they would aggregate into? Like, cities choosing a county, counties choosing a state, states choosing their country, etc.
I originally was noodling with this in the context of a space civilization, where there is no equivalent of "solid ground", everything's always moving, and everything can move (i.e., even a "space station" can still move places, it just may be slower than a "space ship"), where these sorts of structures are probably inevitable because at the unit of 'space station' you can't hardly stop them from moving around between what various borders there may be.
But you can still noodle with the idea on planet Earth, too. Obviously, our current systems have a lot of institutional inertia in the direction of centralization; for instance, the various impacts this will have on the United States due to how we choose representatives, etc. But you can imagine a world in which this gradually becomes more popular, and imagine what the follow-on effects may be. And also consider why it not how things work here. There have also been times and places in history where things did work more like this, such as when and where "city states" were the dominant organizations rather than "nations".
(I present this as an interesting thought topic, not as the solution to the world's problems. I think one thing you will rapidly notice if you put serious thought into it is that especially on Earth, the nature of militaries has a lot of impact on why we find it advantageous to bundle into larger collectives than our neighbors. But I do find myself wondering whether over the next century or so we could save ourselves quite a few shooting wars if we were all more willing to break up amicably instead of fighting to the death over who gets to control tho overly-large, bloated collectives. Alas... we almost certainly won't.)
(Another example... in the space case, your choice of governance might actually manifest as concretely as the operating system your space ship or space station runs on, with its corresponding grants of permission or lack thereof to whatever higher powers your choice of governance has. And then that raises a whole bunch of further interesting possibilities.... on Earth though I would expect geography to still loom large on all discussions of sovereignty, though.)
I originally was noodling with this in the context of a space civilization, where there is no equivalent of "solid ground", everything's always moving, and everything can move (i.e., even a "space station" can still move places, it just may be slower than a "space ship"), where these sorts of structures are probably inevitable because at the unit of 'space station' you can't hardly stop them from moving around between what various borders there may be.
But you can still noodle with the idea on planet Earth, too. Obviously, our current systems have a lot of institutional inertia in the direction of centralization; for instance, the various impacts this will have on the United States due to how we choose representatives, etc. But you can imagine a world in which this gradually becomes more popular, and imagine what the follow-on effects may be. And also consider why it not how things work here. There have also been times and places in history where things did work more like this, such as when and where "city states" were the dominant organizations rather than "nations".
(I present this as an interesting thought topic, not as the solution to the world's problems. I think one thing you will rapidly notice if you put serious thought into it is that especially on Earth, the nature of militaries has a lot of impact on why we find it advantageous to bundle into larger collectives than our neighbors. But I do find myself wondering whether over the next century or so we could save ourselves quite a few shooting wars if we were all more willing to break up amicably instead of fighting to the death over who gets to control tho overly-large, bloated collectives. Alas... we almost certainly won't.)
(Another example... in the space case, your choice of governance might actually manifest as concretely as the operating system your space ship or space station runs on, with its corresponding grants of permission or lack thereof to whatever higher powers your choice of governance has. And then that raises a whole bunch of further interesting possibilities.... on Earth though I would expect geography to still loom large on all discussions of sovereignty, though.)
There is currently a process of devolution in the world, including Scotland, Catalonia, basically the entire former British empire, former Soviet states, and other places in the world. As areas become more peaceful, quite a few places start the see opportunities for governing themselves, and the benefits of creating the laws which directly impact their lives. Some countries technically have the right of secession codified in their laws [1].
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under secession, notes [2]: " As the fear of forcible annexation diminishes and trade barriers fall, smaller states become feasible, and independent statehood looks more feasible for regions within states." They then continue, "Second, in roughly the same time period, the idea that there is a strong case for some form of self-government for groups presently contained within states has gained ground."
Really, the only major benefit of large states is in common military protection; another one would be facilitating economic trade, but that can be taken care of by creating economic zones, like what the EU started as, with sovereign members participating by means of standard treaties. Even military defense could be done by common consent. In Europe, quite a few countries with military ambitions were stopped by coalitions of countries.
If a region has a peaceful and prosperous culture with a defensible geography, then it tends to be more advantageous to self-govern in a small region.
With the unlimited right of secession, the main question is, if someone doesn't _want_ to be part of a country, why should they be _forced_ to be part of that country? You are born into a country, nominally without choice, but that doesn't mean that you should be required to assent to the laws. Of course, most of the time the benefits outweigh the problems, but if they don't, then it is simply coercion to make someone do something that isn't good for them. That's abusive.
[1] https://www.nationalia.info/new/10936/ten-countries-that-gra...
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under secession, notes [2]: " As the fear of forcible annexation diminishes and trade barriers fall, smaller states become feasible, and independent statehood looks more feasible for regions within states." They then continue, "Second, in roughly the same time period, the idea that there is a strong case for some form of self-government for groups presently contained within states has gained ground."
Really, the only major benefit of large states is in common military protection; another one would be facilitating economic trade, but that can be taken care of by creating economic zones, like what the EU started as, with sovereign members participating by means of standard treaties. Even military defense could be done by common consent. In Europe, quite a few countries with military ambitions were stopped by coalitions of countries.
If a region has a peaceful and prosperous culture with a defensible geography, then it tends to be more advantageous to self-govern in a small region.
With the unlimited right of secession, the main question is, if someone doesn't _want_ to be part of a country, why should they be _forced_ to be part of that country? You are born into a country, nominally without choice, but that doesn't mean that you should be required to assent to the laws. Of course, most of the time the benefits outweigh the problems, but if they don't, then it is simply coercion to make someone do something that isn't good for them. That's abusive.
[1] https://www.nationalia.info/new/10936/ten-countries-that-gra...
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/
I feel there is a "seesaw" effect here though - relatively speaking - where when the conditions are right (peace/stability), the needle tends to head towards one direction (decentralization), but when the conditions are different (conflict/instability), the needle often heads the other way (centralization).
There's also the thought that decentralization is seen as a threat by centralized players, therefore, even if it could be more effective, it may be prevented or delayed from taking hold.
There's also the thought that decentralization is seen as a threat by centralized players, therefore, even if it could be more effective, it may be prevented or delayed from taking hold.
I wonder if what you have in mind is like what Germany was before it was unified. Lots of city states that essentially ally together or don't. I don't think it is a stable situation once someone gains the means to conquer by force.
But if everyone agrees to prevent conquering-by-force, why wouldn't it work?
Because whoever has the largest force wouldn't agree to it. For instance, if these counties chose to ignore all the rules and join Idaho, the U.S. has a very large force that it can use to prevent this from happening. In fact, it doesn't even have to use the force, simply having the force is probably enough.
It doesn't work because of externalities. Like, you live in a city state, that's great, but the rural county that your water comes from decided to elect Trump as their leader-for-life and he decided that all water should now contain uranium and lead to ward off COVID-25. Good luck living!
Humans don't work that way. We always create hierarchies of power and control, it's innate to our primate nature.
Put more simply, no one would agree to the idealistic utopian-like rule of "no conquering".
I'm reminded of a short sci-fi story I read long ago about an anarchical society where everyone possessed a weapon capable of destroying entire swathes of country side in an instant. It was some form of unlimited energy device that was also used for other less offensive purposes, but everyone carried a sidearm that could emit a beam of energy capable of melting a mountainside into glass. The story focusses around an attempted coup and has an illustrative ending demonstrating the power of such a weapon to deter the use of force to coerce others.
Plenty would agree to it, with their fingers crossed behind their backs of course.
Because you can break cities into boroughs and boroughs into neighborhoods and neighborhoods into blocks, and where does it stop?
At some point, a tribe has to use force.
At some point, a tribe has to use force.
You'd probably be interested in reading about a governance experiment going on in Honduras, called Prospera - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prospectus-on-prospera
It includes a codified section about choosing your own set of laws to abide by, and mechanisms to resolve disputes between them. It's a long read, but I found it fascinating and it's closely related to your idea.
It includes a codified section about choosing your own set of laws to abide by, and mechanisms to resolve disputes between them. It's a long read, but I found it fascinating and it's closely related to your idea.
>One of the things I periodically mentally noodle with is, what would the world look like if it was a lot easier for units to choose what larger units they would aggregate into?
This sounds like the idea of voluntary association, one of the cornerstones of anarchist philosophy. I don't have much more to add, but many other people have spent a lot of time "noodling" the idea and you may find it interesting.
This sounds like the idea of voluntary association, one of the cornerstones of anarchist philosophy. I don't have much more to add, but many other people have spent a lot of time "noodling" the idea and you may find it interesting.
A huge part of politics is distribution and use of resources. Resources are constrained by access, and distribution is constrained by ownership - not only of resources, but of the space between them. Where you are and what you have determines what you need and how you get it. This applies whether you're in space, on land, in the ocean, etc. Hell, it would apply if we were all just bits of data in the internet. It's all just relative access to matter in spacetime. Whenever people start moving around, or changing what other things move around (or how), conflict occurs.
A great book series that touches on "micro-democracy" in a fictional setting is Malka Older's Infomacracy series. Highly recommend along these lines.
[deleted]
I like your train of thought here, it's a good "noodle". If I might add some more to the noodling... :)
I see an interesting alignment between the trends we are seeing in technology and politics. Actually, my senior thesis back in college (2003) was that the politics of information technology are disruptive to organizations. Not necessarily disruptive in a "sided" sense, in that "disruption" can be considered good, or bad, healthy or damaging, or both.
There is a trend we see in information system/technology architectures towards "decentralized" and/or "federated" solutions. For example - "service mesh" [1] or "data mesh" [2], both higher level stack abstractions that came from lower level mesh networking concepts. And we even see "mesh" concepts in the form of knowledge graphs, social networks, peer-to-peer, etc.
If you read up on this you will often see the word "federated" and it is so interesting that federation is both something we apply to technology/systems as well as political. I am quite sure that it is part of the key to what you are thinking about. There's a reason that countries have been referred to as "federations", why we call it the U.S. "federal" government, etc. I believe, among other things, it largely revolves around how one implements governance and ensures a working "system" in terms of standardization/policy.
There is a desire to be autonomous yet interoperable, and this applies as much to "human" systems as well as purely technological systems. There is a link, after all, between how humans implement systems per Conway's Law [3] - organization's systems often are designed to mirror their communication structure.
Institutions are just one kind of organizational unit, and there too you come across all kinds of interesting issues that have perhaps, barely been explored - one such example is "institutional trust" [4].
In summary, my own latest "noodling" on this area is that actually, our technological and political systems are still very much evolving. When you take into context the possibility that it is truly becoming possible within, how about we say, the next 100 years - that humanity my be able to truly exist off the Earth, in space, for longer periods of time - then that is going to open up a whole world of questions about these very systems which we think we have completely figured out.
If there is one constant I think we can count on, it is probably change - but, ultimately survival (a key element of which is adaptability) will probably be the force that drives whatever the next 100 years look like - and that could be both good or bad overall for the development of new organizational structures.
Personally, I feel that all of this is interwoven together in quite an interesting way and all related, as information systems are the backbones of organizations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_mesh
[2] https://martinfowler.com/articles/data-monolith-to-mesh.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_trust_(social_sc...
I see an interesting alignment between the trends we are seeing in technology and politics. Actually, my senior thesis back in college (2003) was that the politics of information technology are disruptive to organizations. Not necessarily disruptive in a "sided" sense, in that "disruption" can be considered good, or bad, healthy or damaging, or both.
There is a trend we see in information system/technology architectures towards "decentralized" and/or "federated" solutions. For example - "service mesh" [1] or "data mesh" [2], both higher level stack abstractions that came from lower level mesh networking concepts. And we even see "mesh" concepts in the form of knowledge graphs, social networks, peer-to-peer, etc.
If you read up on this you will often see the word "federated" and it is so interesting that federation is both something we apply to technology/systems as well as political. I am quite sure that it is part of the key to what you are thinking about. There's a reason that countries have been referred to as "federations", why we call it the U.S. "federal" government, etc. I believe, among other things, it largely revolves around how one implements governance and ensures a working "system" in terms of standardization/policy.
There is a desire to be autonomous yet interoperable, and this applies as much to "human" systems as well as purely technological systems. There is a link, after all, between how humans implement systems per Conway's Law [3] - organization's systems often are designed to mirror their communication structure.
Institutions are just one kind of organizational unit, and there too you come across all kinds of interesting issues that have perhaps, barely been explored - one such example is "institutional trust" [4].
In summary, my own latest "noodling" on this area is that actually, our technological and political systems are still very much evolving. When you take into context the possibility that it is truly becoming possible within, how about we say, the next 100 years - that humanity my be able to truly exist off the Earth, in space, for longer periods of time - then that is going to open up a whole world of questions about these very systems which we think we have completely figured out.
If there is one constant I think we can count on, it is probably change - but, ultimately survival (a key element of which is adaptability) will probably be the force that drives whatever the next 100 years look like - and that could be both good or bad overall for the development of new organizational structures.
Personally, I feel that all of this is interwoven together in quite an interesting way and all related, as information systems are the backbones of organizations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_mesh
[2] https://martinfowler.com/articles/data-monolith-to-mesh.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_trust_(social_sc...
This article title is grossly misleading. As far as I can tell from the article, no actual votes have happened.
The group behind this is just pushing for counties to support them.
These types of groups pop up all the time, make hay and then disappear.
The group behind this is just pushing for counties to support them.
These types of groups pop up all the time, make hay and then disappear.
There were votes, two more counties will hold a vote at a later date.
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=139
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=124
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=141
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=248
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=242
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=139
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=124
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=141
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=248
https://results.oregonvotes.gov/SearchResults.aspx?ID=242
The vote was taken Tuesday of this week:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/554332-oregon-count...
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/554332-oregon-count...
Yes they can vote to leave the state but they should also not get any of the tax dollars from the more densely populated counties that stay behind. Thank you , Sayonara!
What’s great is all these exceptional, gritty people will put the work and expectations on everyone instead of simply moving to Idaho themselves.
What if they are the majority?
Then they would probably be winning elections on the state level instead of trying to redefine what the state is.
The person you were responding to in all likelihood meant majority of the rural / eastern part of the state not the entire state,
It does not matter.
They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.
They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it.
The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them.
I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works.
Down votes do nothing to make it any less true.
If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon.
So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”.
If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas.
Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution.
Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.
They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it.
The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them.
I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works.
Down votes do nothing to make it any less true.
If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon.
So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”.
If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas.
Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution.
Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.
> They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.
Yes, they do. We all do. That is literally the point of having a democratically elected government.
Yes, they do. We all do. That is literally the point of having a democratically elected government.
Frankly you are just ranting about conservatives and not talking about topic at hand. It is completely irrelevant if conservatives are hypocrites and whatever else you are accusing them of being.
If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen.
Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen.
It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
If you believe in democratic institutions then people will sometimes vote for things you do not support. If Oregon and Idaho legislatures along with the US Congress also agree to this then it should happen.
Nobody is saying that we should not follow the rules and have the legislatures and congress vote on this. Your accusation that they are not abiding by the Constitution is ridiculous and just an outright lie. This vote is just an indication of what they would like to see. So instead of ranting about off topic things why don't you actually make a real argument about why this should not happen.
It is very clear you are not even trying to understand these people. You are not listening to them and are just being a jerk. It is people like you that cause these rural people to want to leave states filled with people who make libelous statements against them.
If these people are such a drag, such a bunch of troublemakers and take in more taxes than they pay why shouldn't Oregon be showing them the door?
Why should the rest of Oregon change to satisfy voters of a non-binding resolution?
They can get a Uhaul and go.
Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?
They can get a Uhaul and go.
Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?
If the arrangement is mutually beneficial to Oregon, the "nobodies" and Idaho is on board then why not? Just to spite the nobodies?
Rule of law, not majority.
It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.
I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
It’s not that the laws could not enable this, but none do.
They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go.
It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
The state has an obligation to the people. Not some people who don’t like the state anymore.
I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California.
It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about.
I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me.
It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are.
This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California.
It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about.
I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me.
It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are.
This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
It sounds like we have very fundamentally different views of government.
If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want?
Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?
If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want?
Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?
I don't think anybody is saying thid should happen without following the law so I am not sure what your point is?
The post I replied to was plainly written.
If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated.
There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.
If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated.
There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.
How is the 6-Californians proposal going, I wonder?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
I love how gerrymandered these proposals are. Make sure that the Bay Area is split across two states, so that both stay blue.
The even more crazy part is the proposed Jefferson has less than 1/10 the population of West or South California but still has a higher population than both Dakotas, Washington DC, Alaska, Vermont, or Wyoming.
West California would still be one of the most populous states in the union, coming in just behind Ohio in 7th place and South California would be nipping on its heels. Silicon Valley would be ranked near Tennessee. As crazy as this proposal sounds, it's probably less crazy than having almost 40 million people be represented by just 2 senators when Wyoming has the same number of senators for barely half a million people.
West California would still be one of the most populous states in the union, coming in just behind Ohio in 7th place and South California would be nipping on its heels. Silicon Valley would be ranked near Tennessee. As crazy as this proposal sounds, it's probably less crazy than having almost 40 million people be represented by just 2 senators when Wyoming has the same number of senators for barely half a million people.
> it's probably less crazy than having almost 40 million people be represented by just 2 senators when Wyoming has the same number of senators for barely half a million people.
This was purposely the design of the Senate. This complaint should be more applied to the House, where we stopped increasing the number of reps as population grew
This was purposely the design of the Senate. This complaint should be more applied to the House, where we stopped increasing the number of reps as population grew
I don’t think the founding fathers really understood how much the population of the states would diverge over the years.
Iirc, the least populous states in the union were about 7% (~1.5% of the national population) the population of the most populous (Virginia). Within 30 years of the constitution's ratification, Indiana was granted statehood with a population equivalent to .8% of the national population.
It's a far cry from Wyoming being ~1% the population of California (~.17% of the US pop), but I think they and the first few generations of american politicians were reasonably aware of the potential spread.
It's a far cry from Wyoming being ~1% the population of California (~.17% of the US pop), but I think they and the first few generations of american politicians were reasonably aware of the potential spread.
I didn't have a good offhand feel for how the ratio of large to small state populations has changed, so for whatever it's worth, the ratio between the largest and smallest state at various times:
1790: 12x (Virginia : Delaware)
1850: 36x (New York : Florida)
1900: 173x (New York : Nevada)
1950: 93x (New York : Nevada)
2000: 69x (California : Wyoming)
2020: 68x (California : Wyoming)
1790: 12x (Virginia : Delaware)
1850: 36x (New York : Florida)
1900: 173x (New York : Nevada)
1950: 93x (New York : Nevada)
2000: 69x (California : Wyoming)
2020: 68x (California : Wyoming)
The Senate was designed by crazy people.
You know we could solve gerrymandering entirely by using proportional representation like many other democracies do.
[deleted]
The person who sponsored the 6 californias proposal was fairly conservative / capitalistic. I doubt he was attempting to create more states that leaned toward Democrats.
Also have you ever been to Marin? A lot of people there are fairly "conservative".
Also have you ever been to Marin? A lot of people there are fairly "conservative".
I do have to wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just move state functions, as many as are practical, to the county level.
Counties are perfectly capable of being 100% in charge of their own schools, roads, police. They largely are, but subject to a great deal of probably unnecessary state control.
Counties are perfectly capable of being 100% in charge of their own schools, roads, police. They largely are, but subject to a great deal of probably unnecessary state control.
That sounds to me like it would create a ton of redundancy, as different organizations reimplement nearly-identical policies.
And then it creates a ton of uncertainty. A different thread was already complaining about the uncertainty of whether children can inherit debts from their parents, which varies from state to state. Is it really a boon to have it vary county by county?
"Simpler" would generally be to centralize what can be centralized. Put all your eggs in one basket, and then make sure it's a really good basket. That's not always the best policy, but if you're looking for the simplest policy, it's usually Don't Repeat Yourself.
And then it creates a ton of uncertainty. A different thread was already complaining about the uncertainty of whether children can inherit debts from their parents, which varies from state to state. Is it really a boon to have it vary county by county?
"Simpler" would generally be to centralize what can be centralized. Put all your eggs in one basket, and then make sure it's a really good basket. That's not always the best policy, but if you're looking for the simplest policy, it's usually Don't Repeat Yourself.
The natural endgame for that is to place all governmental function at the federal level.
I'll be honest, I do find it kinda weird that we have 50 different definitions of "murder" in the US, and a lawyer from the next state over is legally forbidden from helping you out if they haven't also studied for your state.
And I find it equally weird that each separate state gets to define health care regulations, such that separate companies are required in each different state. Lots of duplicated efforts.
There are certainly some functions that are best managed locally, and I suppose there must be some value to the "laboratory of the states" notion (though there are way, way too many variables for any of these experiments to actually be informative).
But in general, yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that I'd just as soon see pushed up rather than down. It would save a lot of headaches. There is surely some stuff that could be pushed down, as well.
And I find it equally weird that each separate state gets to define health care regulations, such that separate companies are required in each different state. Lots of duplicated efforts.
There are certainly some functions that are best managed locally, and I suppose there must be some value to the "laboratory of the states" notion (though there are way, way too many variables for any of these experiments to actually be informative).
But in general, yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that I'd just as soon see pushed up rather than down. It would save a lot of headaches. There is surely some stuff that could be pushed down, as well.
Well the cultures of the states differ significantly. It makes sense to me that regional variation would reflect in laws.
I grew up in southern MO. Arkansas was only about a 40 minute drive away, but I can always tell when I'm there compared to at home. The people dress and look a bit different, the houses look different, it's just a different culture. California and New York are like alien worlds to me. The idea that such different people should live under the same framework seems like a good way to amplify regional tensions.
I grew up in southern MO. Arkansas was only about a 40 minute drive away, but I can always tell when I'm there compared to at home. The people dress and look a bit different, the houses look different, it's just a different culture. California and New York are like alien worlds to me. The idea that such different people should live under the same framework seems like a good way to amplify regional tensions.
Tons of redundancy also creates tons of room for fresh ideas, this basically applies the ideas of capitalism to government.
Having things at the county level that are currently state functions will break a lot of cities, like Atlanta, which are divided into several counties and leads to issues when it comes to regional planning or transit. I think that we should instead remove the city government from having undue influence on the wider region. Beverly hills managed to stall the LA county purple line subway extension for nearly 25 years, and now the costs to do work planned several generations of planners ago are enormous.
This might make school quality even more unequal. No thanks.
I think we might end up with counties mandating the teaching of some pretty abhorrent things if we did that
School systems are already run at a sub-county level, and depending on your politics you can pick which things being taught are abhorrent.
I agree. I have to move back to the bay area and am scared to death about what they are teaching children there. We'll probably homeschool. I couldn't imagine how much worse it would be if they had their own school system.
Welcome to the Libertarian party.
Why not just move to Idaho then? Or some other red state?
They are. Coeur d'Alene, ID is at the top of the US for hottest real estate markets. Average housing cost increase of over 40% in the last year. [1]
Boise and Eastern Idaho are seeing similar growth.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/lakeside-idaho-city-is-americas...
Boise and Eastern Idaho are seeing similar growth.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/lakeside-idaho-city-is-americas...
But is that being driven by people moving from rural Oregon? I am skeptical.
Your right to be skeptical as it's not the case. It's being driven by individuals within Idaho moving to more urban parts of Idaho.
Locals say it's all "Californians," but that is just short hand for folks out of state but surveys and data from ITD (Idaho Transportation Department, i.e. DMV) show it's urbanization at work.
Granted there are folks moving to Idaho from outside of the state but they are the minority causing the influx to CDA and Boise.
Source: Local news, resident of Boise, and someone who is dismayed at the lack of housing in the area.
Locals say it's all "Californians," but that is just short hand for folks out of state but surveys and data from ITD (Idaho Transportation Department, i.e. DMV) show it's urbanization at work.
Granted there are folks moving to Idaho from outside of the state but they are the minority causing the influx to CDA and Boise.
Source: Local news, resident of Boise, and someone who is dismayed at the lack of housing in the area.
In our case (Cd'A) the majority coming in are not from Idaho moving to more urban areas...they are from out of state.
Not sure I would trust the DMV stats during the covid times too since I see a lot of unregistered/expired tags right now.
Most people from the rural areas here cannot afford a house in Coeur d'Alene...it is primarily people coming from other markets where a $600k house is considered a steal.
edit: I have lived in Cd'A for over 40 years...and this year is a very new thing.
Not sure I would trust the DMV stats during the covid times too since I see a lot of unregistered/expired tags right now.
Most people from the rural areas here cannot afford a house in Coeur d'Alene...it is primarily people coming from other markets where a $600k house is considered a steal.
edit: I have lived in Cd'A for over 40 years...and this year is a very new thing.
For the record, there are now huge sections of Boise now where 600k is considered a steal. Boiseans are among those other markets and they moving to other parts of the state as part of this housing shortage.
Anecdotally, just as you've seen unregistered/expired tags, I've had two coworkers use the new remote work freedom to move to CdA/Sandpoint area.
Anecdotally, just as you've seen unregistered/expired tags, I've had two coworkers use the new remote work freedom to move to CdA/Sandpoint area.
Which leads to another issue which isn't brought up enough.
What is going to happen to all the remote high paid workers when it becomes the common trend to scale pay to the area?
Currently...you need to make 3x the average pay to be eligible for a house. Anyone who loses their job that has moved to the area is going to find that there is little to no high paying jobs for quite some distance.
It has already happened to more than one person I know locally. Not saying they will have any issue selling their house.
What is going to happen to all the remote high paid workers when it becomes the common trend to scale pay to the area?
Currently...you need to make 3x the average pay to be eligible for a house. Anyone who loses their job that has moved to the area is going to find that there is little to no high paying jobs for quite some distance.
It has already happened to more than one person I know locally. Not saying they will have any issue selling their house.
Totally legit question. I know for Boise "scale pay for the area" already has a wildly different meaning depending on the employer.
I've had employers who hired in Boise for cheaper talent than in SoCal (50-80% the pay,) I've had others who pay the same as Salt Lake City -- closest metro area with data, and another who took the Seattle office averages -40-75k and called it fair. Tech wages here are extremely variable and have little to do with local cost of living.
I've had employers who hired in Boise for cheaper talent than in SoCal (50-80% the pay,) I've had others who pay the same as Salt Lake City -- closest metro area with data, and another who took the Seattle office averages -40-75k and called it fair. Tech wages here are extremely variable and have little to do with local cost of living.
You don't just move a farm. And there isn't a lot of extra farm land available in Idaho anymore.
I've been assured that moving a farm is very easy. That way, if the climate heats up part of the country, you just pack up and move the farm further north.
I suspect that if you asked in Malheur, Sherman, Grant, Baker, Lake, Jefferson and Union counties, they'd agree that we can afford to ignore carbon dioxide production.
I suspect that if you asked in Malheur, Sherman, Grant, Baker, Lake, Jefferson and Union counties, they'd agree that we can afford to ignore carbon dioxide production.
Bill Gates doesn't seem to think climate change is a problem either https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/bill-and-melinda-...
Guessing they like some combination of geography, neighborhood, house, job where they live?
Most are farmers who have been working the same land for generations. They know it inside and out under all sorts of conditions. It's kind of trivial to move a household vs an entire farm system. It can take several years to get it all up and running again, depending on your crop/animals of course.
There is no political back and forth like there used to be where you'd have republicans controlling things for a time and then democrats. It's been mostly Portland democrats controlling the state for over 20 years now. The needs of most of the state, by geography but which has a lower population, are not the same as those in the 1 big city the state has, so a lot of people are interested in changing that with democratic votes.
Since Portland pays the lionshare of taxes for the state, you'd think they'd be happy getting rid of the poorer parts of the states that they have to currently subsidize. Seems like it would be a win-win for everybody involved. What are the downsides?
If you look at the state senate map, there is a lot more red land mass than blue. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oregon_Senate_map.pn...
There is no political back and forth like there used to be where you'd have republicans controlling things for a time and then democrats. It's been mostly Portland democrats controlling the state for over 20 years now. The needs of most of the state, by geography but which has a lower population, are not the same as those in the 1 big city the state has, so a lot of people are interested in changing that with democratic votes.
Since Portland pays the lionshare of taxes for the state, you'd think they'd be happy getting rid of the poorer parts of the states that they have to currently subsidize. Seems like it would be a win-win for everybody involved. What are the downsides?
If you look at the state senate map, there is a lot more red land mass than blue. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oregon_Senate_map.pn...
>If you look at the state senate map, there is a lot more red land mass than blue.
I have yet to come across a land mass that has a political leaning.
I have yet to come across a land mass that has a political leaning.
Land mass is a dog whistle for agriculture, which has a disproportion amount of political power because of the necessity of keeping grocery stores stocked.
> Most are farmers
A few are farmers. Looking back a generation or two most of the people in southern Oregon were employed by the timber industry - that number has shrunk considerably over the last generation. There are Eastern Oregon ranches but they tend to be pretty large so not a whole lot of actual farmers/ranchers in total. Yes, they employ people to work on those farms/ranches. And yes, the counties involved in these votes are pretty sparsely populated, but I'd be surprised if even as many as 20% are employed in agriculture at this point. Here's some data from the ODA:
"Oregon’s principal operators of farms and ranchesmake up less than one percent of the total population of Oregon. However, when paid and unpaid on-farm workers are included the total number of workers on the farms and ranchesincreases to approximately four percent of Oregon’s population." [1]
> There is no political back and forth like there used to be where you'd have republicans controlling things for a time and then democrats.
I'm old enough to remember when Oregon Republicans were by and large quite liberal - at least the ones who actually won statewide elections (Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, Packwood - all Republicans, all would be considered quite liberal today). Both parties tended to have liberal and conservative wings back then, but the conservatives didn't win many elections.
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Adm...
A few are farmers. Looking back a generation or two most of the people in southern Oregon were employed by the timber industry - that number has shrunk considerably over the last generation. There are Eastern Oregon ranches but they tend to be pretty large so not a whole lot of actual farmers/ranchers in total. Yes, they employ people to work on those farms/ranches. And yes, the counties involved in these votes are pretty sparsely populated, but I'd be surprised if even as many as 20% are employed in agriculture at this point. Here's some data from the ODA:
"Oregon’s principal operators of farms and ranchesmake up less than one percent of the total population of Oregon. However, when paid and unpaid on-farm workers are included the total number of workers on the farms and ranchesincreases to approximately four percent of Oregon’s population." [1]
> There is no political back and forth like there used to be where you'd have republicans controlling things for a time and then democrats.
I'm old enough to remember when Oregon Republicans were by and large quite liberal - at least the ones who actually won statewide elections (Tom McCall, Mark Hatfield, Packwood - all Republicans, all would be considered quite liberal today). Both parties tended to have liberal and conservative wings back then, but the conservatives didn't win many elections.
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Adm...
I've talked to a lot of these people in passing and they honestly believe Oregon is a red state but is being cheated by Portland. They always point to land area thats red as proof.
Idk, why not just break up Oregon a little bit?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but... why are we so adamant about clinging to certain structures even if they don't work for people?
You might say "but not everybody agrees with this move..." well sure but at what point do we say the will of the general population matters more without appealing to some higher authority like the U.S. to implement rules that you agree with even if the local population doesn't?
Some reasonable lines can be drawn. For example, obviously you can't let a group of people just murder other people or something. But what about letting them teach the Bible or Islam in their schools? I mean, it's their schools right? Don't their property taxes pay for them? It's a complicated subject, IMO.
And if you want less clear examples it would be easy to find.
The truth of the matter as I see it is that this "problem" is not going away. Nation states are an historical anomaly, and now that there's no war and need to organize for something meaningful, and the world has gotten much smaller, we're seeing fractures come into being. This could be (and I'm not comparing any of these) Basque rebels, Ireland, China geocoding Uighur Muslims to make room for Han Chinese, Quebec, etc. and you can also look at general wealth and outperformance of smaller countries that trend toward being city states as they can and tend to more freely compete without risk of violence on the international stage.
IMO cryptocurrency, fracturing and bankrupt nation states, and other things will largely destroy the nation states as we know them today, barring anything unforeseen. It'll take a while though, we're just living through history.
And FWIW I am a U.S. Army veteran - so I'm pretty 'Murica, but as much as I don't want to admit it, it seems to me that just having such a large country with a population that is increasingly divided, is just going to lead toward separatists movements.
And just to get a cheap-shot at Texas. Sure is a whole lot of boot and no spur there when you want to deny federal aid to other states, but then have your own problems and come begging hat in hand from the feds. Where's your seccession now?
Anyway.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but... why are we so adamant about clinging to certain structures even if they don't work for people?
You might say "but not everybody agrees with this move..." well sure but at what point do we say the will of the general population matters more without appealing to some higher authority like the U.S. to implement rules that you agree with even if the local population doesn't?
Some reasonable lines can be drawn. For example, obviously you can't let a group of people just murder other people or something. But what about letting them teach the Bible or Islam in their schools? I mean, it's their schools right? Don't their property taxes pay for them? It's a complicated subject, IMO.
And if you want less clear examples it would be easy to find.
The truth of the matter as I see it is that this "problem" is not going away. Nation states are an historical anomaly, and now that there's no war and need to organize for something meaningful, and the world has gotten much smaller, we're seeing fractures come into being. This could be (and I'm not comparing any of these) Basque rebels, Ireland, China geocoding Uighur Muslims to make room for Han Chinese, Quebec, etc. and you can also look at general wealth and outperformance of smaller countries that trend toward being city states as they can and tend to more freely compete without risk of violence on the international stage.
IMO cryptocurrency, fracturing and bankrupt nation states, and other things will largely destroy the nation states as we know them today, barring anything unforeseen. It'll take a while though, we're just living through history.
And FWIW I am a U.S. Army veteran - so I'm pretty 'Murica, but as much as I don't want to admit it, it seems to me that just having such a large country with a population that is increasingly divided, is just going to lead toward separatists movements.
And just to get a cheap-shot at Texas. Sure is a whole lot of boot and no spur there when you want to deny federal aid to other states, but then have your own problems and come begging hat in hand from the feds. Where's your seccession now?
Anyway.
Because America is balanced on a knife's edge, and the Senate and Electoral college basically runs the show.
If you introduce a new state that leans blue, that's two more blue senators and N more electoral college votes for a blue president. Republicans will staunchly oppose this. And vice versa.
If the senate were proportional to population, and if the electoral college were likewise apportioned via popular vote, then maybe you could be more flexible with state boundaries.
If you introduce a new state that leans blue, that's two more blue senators and N more electoral college votes for a blue president. Republicans will staunchly oppose this. And vice versa.
If the senate were proportional to population, and if the electoral college were likewise apportioned via popular vote, then maybe you could be more flexible with state boundaries.
You're in the wrong frame of reference here and trying to balance out some sort of America that I think is likely to not exist all that long.
The senate thing though wouldn't be relevant based on what this article is saying. Oregon would have 2 senators as it does now, Idaho would have 2 as well. Potentially could have an effect on the house though but that depends on the population demographics.
> If the senate were proportional to population, and if the electoral college were likewise apportioned via popular vote, then maybe you could be more flexible with state boundaries.
Well no I don't think that would change much. But I also view the senate as it currently exists as good. Frankly, legislation was intended to be difficult to pass - it should be even more difficult to pass. If something doesn't have broad consensus then getting a slight majority and ramming it down the other side's throat (why are there only two sides anyway) is a lightning rod for partisanship.
But also, why would there be states in a hundred or two hundred years? Maybe nuclear weapons will keep the nation state together like it has Russia. Idk.
The senate thing though wouldn't be relevant based on what this article is saying. Oregon would have 2 senators as it does now, Idaho would have 2 as well. Potentially could have an effect on the house though but that depends on the population demographics.
> If the senate were proportional to population, and if the electoral college were likewise apportioned via popular vote, then maybe you could be more flexible with state boundaries.
Well no I don't think that would change much. But I also view the senate as it currently exists as good. Frankly, legislation was intended to be difficult to pass - it should be even more difficult to pass. If something doesn't have broad consensus then getting a slight majority and ramming it down the other side's throat (why are there only two sides anyway) is a lightning rod for partisanship.
But also, why would there be states in a hundred or two hundred years? Maybe nuclear weapons will keep the nation state together like it has Russia. Idk.
It shouldn't be hard to divy up states (granted you might have to cut a state into more than two parts in some cases) in a way that results in no net gain for either party. It's a simple math problem.
But that doesn't solve the problem. If the problem is, "East Oregonians feel disconnected from West Oregonians", I don't think there's a way to split Oregon that results in a net equal number of new representatives and simultaneously addresses the "we're too politically divided" concern.
Yes, you could slice Oregon in half horizontally and maintain the same number of reps, but then you'd have two new states with the East feeling divided. If you split it vertically, then you have the problem of uneven representation.
Yes, you could slice Oregon in half horizontally and maintain the same number of reps, but then you'd have two new states with the East feeling divided. If you split it vertically, then you have the problem of uneven representation.
In order to create 2 new Senate seats.
Changing the border wouldn't change senate seats. Oregon would still get 2 senators, and Idaho will still have 2 just like all other states. A new 51st state isn't being created. Representatives would change a bit though since they are population based.
[deleted]
They would be abandoning some incredible watersheds[1] if they did. That's probably the point of this whole project, to put a huge chunk of western water resources under the control of a single state amenable to white supremacists[2].
1. https://geology.com/lakes-rivers-water/oregon.shtml
2. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924461164/are-paramilitary-ex...
1. https://geology.com/lakes-rivers-water/oregon.shtml
2. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924461164/are-paramilitary-ex...
I mean, not wrong, but Oregon was founded as an explicit white ethnostate. The state constitution language barring "negroes, mulattos and Chinamen" was not even removed until 2002.
Mods: please consider changing the title to: Five Oregon counties vote to discuss joining 'Greater Idaho'
The Greater Idaho project would absorb nearly the entire water resources of the East Cascades, placing them under the control of a single state entity.
Doesn't bode well for a Western US that will be increasingly dependent on freshwater as the Earth warms.
Doesn't bode well for a Western US that will be increasingly dependent on freshwater as the Earth warms.
The coastal cities would have access to the major international ports. I suspect the states would have to get along or everyone loses.
Research suggests about 25-30% of people are willing to suffer a disadvantage if it will result in someone else suffering a great one. So this isn't an reliable as incentive as most economists imagine.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600451
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600451
What’s the likeliness of this happening? The greateridaho.org website says this has happened before, but at a smaller degree. Is this legal, or just symbolic?
Not very likely to happen. Would take a lot of votes where they would be in the minority to go there way.
Borders between states do change on small scales. Since the 1940's:
1950: Kansas and Missouri exchanged land along the Missouri River due to flooding in 1944.
1961: 20 acres of land was transferred from Minnesota to North Dakota
1977: Texas and Mexico exchanged some parcels of land.
1998: Supreme Court gave part of Ellis Island to New Jersey
2017: North Carolina and South Carolina moved about 19 homes across state lines.
Honestly the formation of West Virginia comes to mind as a similar situation where they had political disputes, had a bill of secession, and just generally felt they were not represented and outnumbered by the government to the east of the Appalachian mountains. They weren't able to succeed until the Civil War broke out and they stayed with the Union.
Borders between states do change on small scales. Since the 1940's:
1950: Kansas and Missouri exchanged land along the Missouri River due to flooding in 1944.
1961: 20 acres of land was transferred from Minnesota to North Dakota
1977: Texas and Mexico exchanged some parcels of land.
1998: Supreme Court gave part of Ellis Island to New Jersey
2017: North Carolina and South Carolina moved about 19 homes across state lines.
Honestly the formation of West Virginia comes to mind as a similar situation where they had political disputes, had a bill of secession, and just generally felt they were not represented and outnumbered by the government to the east of the Appalachian mountains. They weren't able to succeed until the Civil War broke out and they stayed with the Union.
Huh, thanks. Even though it’s a long shot, it seems really interesting.
Much better article here: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/05/more-oregon-coun...
Some necessary context on any discussion of this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorial_Imperati...
Ideological separatism in that part of the country is A Thing.
Ideological separatism in that part of the country is A Thing.
[deleted]
Relevant interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_p...
The URL of this story is interesting:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/05/19/Oregon-Idaho-Dona...
I assume the "Oregon-Idaho-Donald-Trump-Joe-Biden" is some SEO thing? It doesn't seem all that central to the story.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2021/05/19/Oregon-Idaho-Dona...
I assume the "Oregon-Idaho-Donald-Trump-Joe-Biden" is some SEO thing? It doesn't seem all that central to the story.
The most innocuous explanation is that the URL was automatically generated from the headline, and then the headline was later changed but the URL was not. I've seen that situation happen on multiple news websites. Most commonly as new information is added to an existing website, but sometimes the headline will simply get changed over the course of the day as the article is promoted from the middle of the page, up to the top, back down to the bottom.
It strikes me as though it's just jamming tags together to build a slug.
This was once really useful for SEO but is less so in 2021.
This was once really useful for SEO but is less so in 2021.
Trump is a central facet of the story because those counties wanting to join Idaho favored Trump in the election.
Seems like the GOP is kicking gerrymandering into overdrive.
They’re clearly emboldened by the number of congressional districts they gained thanks to the latest census happening during their reign.
For reference, this is about 100K people of 4.2M in Oregon (1). The rural counties of Southern Oregon and Northern California have been proposing the state of Jefferson for a while now (2). From my experience living there for a few years, it's the most libertarian place I've ever seen. It's like Texas without the Christianity. People there generally support gay marriage, abortion, and cannabis legalization but also low taxes, no gun restrictions and limited government.
(1) https://www.oregon-demographics.com/counties_by_population
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
(1) https://www.oregon-demographics.com/counties_by_population
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
The counties that make up Jefferson could also be absorbed into Western Nevada, but that's not as sexy as becoming your own state.
It varies a lot. I spent some growing up years in Southern Oregon and there definitely was a strong evangelical, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion etc. contingent in the town where I was. Lots of Birchers & KKK types as well. This was in the 70s and while the whole QAnon thing now is epistemlogically shocking, it seems like we had a lot of similar kinds of conspiracies running rampant in small southern Oregon towns back then as well.
My dad was a science teacher so we felt pretty much like an island of progressivism in a sea of very right wing folk. More than once I recall him shaking his head and muttering something like "These people are nuts!" after an exchange with a local that went off the rails into conspiracy land.
My dad was a science teacher so we felt pretty much like an island of progressivism in a sea of very right wing folk. More than once I recall him shaking his head and muttering something like "These people are nuts!" after an exchange with a local that went off the rails into conspiracy land.
I mean Oregon was founded as a white only state it's right in there constitution.
> No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
So it's not surprising so much of the state is like this. People give the south crap but the Pacific Northwest was literally founded on these ideals and it still very much persists to this day.
> No free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws
So it's not surprising so much of the state is like this. People give the south crap but the Pacific Northwest was literally founded on these ideals and it still very much persists to this day.
The current racism in Oregon is certainly not something I want to understate but it's unfair to compare Oregon now to the deep South now. The whole of the United States was founded on slavery but a lot has changed. Not nearly as much as has changed in the South. For example, President Obama lost the national white vote 43% to 55% in 2008 (1). In 2008, more than 89% of the voters in Oregon were white and voted for Obama by 59% to 41% (2). I think it's fair to say at least recently, the white people in Oregon think very differently than the white people in the South. Of course, issues around race continue to exist in significant and meaningful ways in Oregon. But saying it's all the same is deceitfully misleading.
(1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpo...
(1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2008/results/states/exitpo...
> The whole of the United States was founded on slavery
Citation needed. I'll be curious how you show that each state was "founded on" slavery, and how that was true from the inception of each of those states.
Citation needed. I'll be curious how you show that each state was "founded on" slavery, and how that was true from the inception of each of those states.
Slavery was the chief issue preventing the colonies from creating a united government. At first, the Articles of Confederation created a shell of a government that quickly fell apart leading to the constitutional convention and the creation of the US Government as we know it today. At the time, slavery was the most contested issue when writing the current constitution.
It's important to recognize almost all of the economic power of the US came from slave labor exports like tobacco. That's why we have so many Virginians as founding fathers and why the capital was put in Virginia. The compromise that led to the Southern Colonies accepting the US constitution is famously known as the 3/5 compromise. This compromise heavily impacted US politics for decades as new states had to be evenly added to maintain the balance between slave holding states and non-slave holding states. When this balance fell apart, the civil war started.
The issue of slavery weighed heavily in the creation of the US from political, economic, and cultural perspectives for decades. Slavery formed the economic basis of the early United States and 250 years later, we're still feeling its impact.
It's important to recognize almost all of the economic power of the US came from slave labor exports like tobacco. That's why we have so many Virginians as founding fathers and why the capital was put in Virginia. The compromise that led to the Southern Colonies accepting the US constitution is famously known as the 3/5 compromise. This compromise heavily impacted US politics for decades as new states had to be evenly added to maintain the balance between slave holding states and non-slave holding states. When this balance fell apart, the civil war started.
The issue of slavery weighed heavily in the creation of the US from political, economic, and cultural perspectives for decades. Slavery formed the economic basis of the early United States and 250 years later, we're still feeling its impact.
You said, "the whole of the United States was founded on slavery." That statement is what I take issue with. If you feel like amending that, to something like "some parts of the United States leaned heavily on the use of slavery", I would agree. It's the extreme claim of your first statement that I take issue with.
In general, you've limited your claims to some of the original 13 states / colonies. That's a far cry from "the whole of the United States". I'd like to see your sources for each of the other 50 states, that they were each founded on slavery.
Not only that, but you seem to be defending your very general statement by only looking at a very limited time frame. Were each of the states so heavily dependent on slavery that it could be said that, e.g., Wyoming or Wisconsin or even Alaska were founded on slavery?
I don't think so.
In general, you've limited your claims to some of the original 13 states / colonies. That's a far cry from "the whole of the United States". I'd like to see your sources for each of the other 50 states, that they were each founded on slavery.
Not only that, but you seem to be defending your very general statement by only looking at a very limited time frame. Were each of the states so heavily dependent on slavery that it could be said that, e.g., Wyoming or Wisconsin or even Alaska were founded on slavery?
I don't think so.
This assumes all votes were based on race and that voting for a white person makes you racist and voting for a black person makes you not racist. There is just so much wrong with that.
Your response is disgustingly incorrect. President Obama's election as the first black president certainly included significant racial elements. When comparing it to Clinton vs Dole in 1996, Clinton lost the white vote 42% to 44% (1). Obama lost the white vote 43% to 55% (2). Both Clinton and Obama won by 8% differences.
Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3).
(1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996
(2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008
(3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
Yes, not voting for the black candidate over the white candidate doesn't make you racist. But to ignore race altogether as a factor is just as ignorant and even more damaging. The 2008 president election was one of the most racially divisive elections in US history (3).
(1) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996
(2) https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2008
(3) http://www.columbia.edu/~tko2103/GVF20110722.pdf
You left out something important. In 1996, Clinton won the African-American vote 84% to 12%. In 2008, Obama won the African-American vote 95% to 4%. That's a far larger difference.
You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
You're right: let's not ignore race. By your own logic, if you're saying the white polling numbers show white racism, then you have to admit that the African American polling numbers show far more extreme racism on the part of African Americans.
I know you already know how silly this comparison is. Replace White with Han Chinese and Black with Uyghur if you need help.
It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
It's not exactly a surprise when the repressed and discriminated against minority sees race as a more important issue. Equating racism without considering the context of who holds what power is simply disingenuous.
I used exactly the same argument you did, with equivalent data. You're now trying to wiggle out of admitting equivalent conclusions.
That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
That stinks of gross and explicit doublethink.
You're so goofy. I love it. We should hang out sometime.
Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
Edit: I apologize for doing this as an edit but HN won't let me reply so here it is. I've made my points and you've made your's. You haven't brought up any new points and you've been ignoring mine previous ones that already anticipate your response. So let's trivialize it because it's not going any further. Seriously though. I hope you have a wonderful day.
Aw, you can't come up with a rational response. I'll admit, trivializing is a decent follow-up when you've got no arguments left.
EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
EDIT: I'll answer with an edit also. For my part, it seems like my response went unanswered and you didn't really anticipate it, and I do think the argument has places to go. However, I do wish you the best, and I hope you have a wonderful day too.
Your are overlooking a few big factor. Those are two completely different people, from different states with different policies, against different candidates, and at different times. Yet you are claiming race was the biggest factor in their voting differences with zero evidence.
It doesn't assume anything. It registers evidence for one hypothesis over another. If the evidence doesn't move your priors at all, then you're not thinking rationally. Of course there are other factors as well (which perhaps dominate), the strictness of the Dem/Rep split, etc. but this one piece of evidence should move you in the direction described.
That isn’t evidence for anyone voting based on race or that Oregon having more whites voting for a black person makes them less racist. Just being a different color has absolutely nothing to do with any of their qualifications, policies, personality, opponent, and more. Assuming race is the biggest factor based on the voters race and the candidates race is extremely racist in itself. An outcome alone based on race doesn’t determine the motive of voters. Even just candidates campaigning in a specific area would result in very different numbers.
There were exclusion laws in a fair bit of the Midwest back in the day. I don't know that those states are any more or any less racist than the rest of the US.
I recently moved from Eagle Point so probably not too far away from where you were. It's certainly a strange and diverse set of people. Everything from weed growers to hippies to evangelicals to conspiracy nuts and everything in between. Most of the people I met there generally distrusted the government and couldn't care less about what you did on your own land.
It really is kind of a weird place. I recall that soon after we moved there one of my dad's colleagues explained the situation something like this: "You know about Appalachia, right? Well, it's like there was a part of the Oregon trail that went directly from Appalachia to Southern Oregon - this is Appalachia West." The KKK was really active in that area for a long time which seems weird for a place on the West Coast - but then again, Oregon was founded on excluding Black people.
But then we also had The Rainbow People which were a large hippie group that traveled around the PNW and often came into our area for big camp outs. Talk about a cultural divide.
But then we also had The Rainbow People which were a large hippie group that traveled around the PNW and often came into our area for big camp outs. Talk about a cultural divide.
Oregon has a long history of encoding racism into law, from the Black Exclusion laws from its early history to sundown laws that lasted into the 20th century.
Idaho, too -- the Aryan Nations had their headquarters in the Hayden Lake area for a long time, until the early 2000s if I remember.
It's only in the big cities that you get a lot of a liberal/progressive presence, outside that you get anywhere from libertarians to evangelicals to the outright racists/alt-right types.
Idaho, too -- the Aryan Nations had their headquarters in the Hayden Lake area for a long time, until the early 2000s if I remember.
It's only in the big cities that you get a lot of a liberal/progressive presence, outside that you get anywhere from libertarians to evangelicals to the outright racists/alt-right types.
Neo-nazis and other racial separatists explicitly advocate for the pacific north west to be their home, as they consider it to be the furthest from Atlanta, which they consider to be majority black. The PNW is also home to Christian nationalist terrorists like Matt Shae, who advocate forced conversion and murder of non-Christian minorities.
Fun fact: Oregon arrests and prosecutes minorities more aggressively than every other state in the nation.
Fun fact: Oregon arrests and prosecutes minorities more aggressively than every other state in the nation.
The University of Washington in Seattle was super progressive and accepted black students. Cool, right? Nah, the campus was north of the Montlake Cut, so black students weren't allowed on campus past sundown -- a little past 4 PM in the winter -- until the late 60s.
This wasn't somehow special to Seattle, either, but I grew up south of the cut and always wondered why the north end was so white until I learned my history[1].
In public schooling, the framing of the civil rights movement in history classes made me think that it was somehow a problem that the South had. Turns out, every major city I've looked into was segregated, until that became illegal. And even so, real estate agents subtly perpetuate the intent of those old laws to this day [2].
[1] http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorit...
This wasn't somehow special to Seattle, either, but I grew up south of the cut and always wondered why the north end was so white until I learned my history[1].
In public schooling, the framing of the civil rights movement in history classes made me think that it was somehow a problem that the South had. Turns out, every major city I've looked into was segregated, until that became illegal. And even so, real estate agents subtly perpetuate the intent of those old laws to this day [2].
[1] http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorit...
Wandering around the back roads near Cave Junction, I rode past a barn with a giant mural advocating world peace and love for all. The fence around the barn was plastered with 'trespassers will be shot' signs. It is, indeed, it's own world...
[deleted]
>while the whole QAnon thing now is epistemlogically shocking
only if you have forgotten, as you say, the great satanic panic(s) of the 70s and 80s. And, every few decades, going back to about Carthage...
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997559036/americas-satanic-pa...
only if you have forgotten, as you say, the great satanic panic(s) of the 70s and 80s. And, every few decades, going back to about Carthage...
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997559036/americas-satanic-pa...
Everybody here seems to be an expert in what is best for these people, and why their votes are stupid and wrong, and shouldn’t matter.
I'll predict these counties are largely GOP.
This will open up precedent for urban areas to secede from their states and declare themselves states.
The GOP maintains power via the senate's disproportionate empowering of rural states. Before anyone says that the senate is intended to represent land, just realize that almost all of this "representation of land" is done via white senators.
If democratic urban areas declared themselves states, gaining senators to represent themselves (and depriving the rural areas of the economic vitality of the cities, then the GOP would be finished.
This will open up precedent for urban areas to secede from their states and declare themselves states.
The GOP maintains power via the senate's disproportionate empowering of rural states. Before anyone says that the senate is intended to represent land, just realize that almost all of this "representation of land" is done via white senators.
If democratic urban areas declared themselves states, gaining senators to represent themselves (and depriving the rural areas of the economic vitality of the cities, then the GOP would be finished.
Puerto-Rico can't get statehood while others get to choose which state they feel more comfortable to belong to ... Who said that the life is just?
As an Oregonian not living in one of those sparsely-populated counties that voted for secession, I wonder why the folks who want to be part of Idaho don't just vote with their feet and move there? There's no border wall keeping them in Oregon. These votes are just symbolic and won't get them to their Idaho paradise near as quickly as a U-Haul could.
The whole point of democracy is to vote to change things you don't like about your government. I don't agree with them but I respect their right to vote on it. I wouldn't respect or legitimize a violent insurrection.
>I wouldn't respect or legitimize a violent insurrection.
You know that's how the US was formed, right?
You know that's how the US was formed, right?
It's almost like different situations are different. Violence has been a part of Oregonian state politics for a long time and as recently as within the last 12 months (1). I certainly do not condone nor support the violence of the far-right in the place where I've spent the majority of my life.
I would love to learn about your perspective though. What deep issues do you think require violence in this situation? Do you support their right to leave the state violently if the state legislature doesn't let them? What level of insurrection do you think is okay? Are they just allowed to defend themselves within their county or are they justified attacking the state government outside of their lands?
I'm excited to hear your response. I'm sure you're trying to add to the conversation and I can't wait to learn from you.
(1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/01/oregon-state...
I would love to learn about your perspective though. What deep issues do you think require violence in this situation? Do you support their right to leave the state violently if the state legislature doesn't let them? What level of insurrection do you think is okay? Are they just allowed to defend themselves within their county or are they justified attacking the state government outside of their lands?
I'm excited to hear your response. I'm sure you're trying to add to the conversation and I can't wait to learn from you.
(1) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/01/oregon-state...
Sure, but the future can be better than the past. It would be wonderful for humans if the process of changing sovereignty were normally non-violent.
Yeah, but it's not like this vote is going to accomplish anything. It's just symbolic. If they really want to live under a more conservative government, well, there's one right there to the east.
[deleted]
For all the times you hear "if you don't like it, leave", it does rub me as rich that they would want to move the line instead of stepping over it. I'm not saying it's easy, but giddy up, how about some pioneering spirit?
What is the typical response to "if you don't like it leave"?
Why isn't "if you don't like it leave" a productive suggestion in pretty much any case?
Per the guidelines of this site, we are recommended to take the most charitable interpretation of the other commenter's post. Similarly, you could pay more heed to the more nuanced arguments of the other political side, and just ignore the non-productive arguments like "if you don't like it leave." Throwing that suggestion back over the wall, isn't going to lead to a productive conversation.
Why isn't "if you don't like it leave" a productive suggestion in pretty much any case?
Per the guidelines of this site, we are recommended to take the most charitable interpretation of the other commenter's post. Similarly, you could pay more heed to the more nuanced arguments of the other political side, and just ignore the non-productive arguments like "if you don't like it leave." Throwing that suggestion back over the wall, isn't going to lead to a productive conversation.
Maybe they like their home, their community, and their neighborhood, but what they don’t like is having a bunch of people living in population centers far away who don’t share their values telling them how to live their lives?
> a bunch of people living in population centers far away
"Far away" being "within the same state"?
> "telling them how to live their lives"
Yes, tell us the horrifying tales of distinctive micromanagement the people of Eastern Oregon have to suffer from.
If you live in society featuring representative government and rule of law, no matter where you live you'll run into a situation where you won't be part of the plurality.
And yes, frequently, "population centers" are going to be where the majority of people live, which means in any state, you're going to have the same problem. Which means this complaint is essentially about the idea that certain minorities get that they should have the right to impose their values on the majority.
"Far away" being "within the same state"?
> "telling them how to live their lives"
Yes, tell us the horrifying tales of distinctive micromanagement the people of Eastern Oregon have to suffer from.
If you live in society featuring representative government and rule of law, no matter where you live you'll run into a situation where you won't be part of the plurality.
And yes, frequently, "population centers" are going to be where the majority of people live, which means in any state, you're going to have the same problem. Which means this complaint is essentially about the idea that certain minorities get that they should have the right to impose their values on the majority.
> "Far away" being "within the same state"?
Don't confuse Oregon with some small New England state. It's the 10th largest, clocking in at nearly 400 miles E-W. For reference, if you drove 60mph and managed to take a straight line across it'd be over 6.5 hours of drive time, and the physical geography drastically changes in that distance.
Don't confuse Oregon with some small New England state. It's the 10th largest, clocking in at nearly 400 miles E-W. For reference, if you drove 60mph and managed to take a straight line across it'd be over 6.5 hours of drive time, and the physical geography drastically changes in that distance.
>Which means this complaint is essentially about the idea that certain minorities get that they should have the right to impose their values on the majority.
I don't think you understand what the word impose means. How is asking to leave imposing something on anyone?
If you want to see an example of minority groups imposing beliefs on the majority you should look at BLM and lgtbq communities.
I don't think you understand what the word impose means. How is asking to leave imposing something on anyone?
If you want to see an example of minority groups imposing beliefs on the majority you should look at BLM and lgtbq communities.
I don't know if you've lived in a lot of these places, but most of them are utterly dependent on those population centers to meet their basic medical, financial, and infrastructure needs. The cores in turn need resources from the peripheries to sustain themselves. There's no reason any of this has to be oppositional, except that the rural counties are pissed off about elections and lockdowns right now.
I don't quite agree with this view based on what I've seen/heard from small town folks.
The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their communities' health. People grow their veggies, raise their own pigs, hold three jobs to pay the bills ...etc.
People in small towns really couldn't give 2 f()cks about people from the city, but they get pissed off because city people come and try to tell them what to do. Basically, they've not asked for any help from cities before, so why should they be handed down constrains now?
At least that's what I've seen.
The narrative that rural counties depend on the centers for their infrastructure needs is a view that was created by the cities. In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient. They know help isn't coming their way, and therefore are totally okay doing what needs to be done to preserve their communities' health. People grow their veggies, raise their own pigs, hold three jobs to pay the bills ...etc.
People in small towns really couldn't give 2 f()cks about people from the city, but they get pissed off because city people come and try to tell them what to do. Basically, they've not asked for any help from cities before, so why should they be handed down constrains now?
At least that's what I've seen.
Can you be more specific about where you've seen people in eastern Oregon and modoc/siskiyou living on local subsistence agriculture? These areas are mountainous, high altitude, and incredibly arid, not exactly prime agricultural land. That's a big part of why they're so lightly populated.
As for jobs, their main employers are typically some combination of tourism, ranching, and most of all, government. Often it's colleges and medical facilities that are the largest employers overall, which critically rely on state funding.
I've definitely heard people in these areas who say they don't need doctors, schools, or roads, but hopefully we can agree that it's a silly position and not an argument most people would make.
As for jobs, their main employers are typically some combination of tourism, ranching, and most of all, government. Often it's colleges and medical facilities that are the largest employers overall, which critically rely on state funding.
I've definitely heard people in these areas who say they don't need doctors, schools, or roads, but hopefully we can agree that it's a silly position and not an argument most people would make.
> In practice, people is small towns and rural counties are extremely self-sufficient.
The narrative that rural counties are extremely self-sufficient is utter-nonsense, cult-like thinking. They don't have the population, tax-base, or non-individualistic thinking to do anything at all. They're dead in the water without outside funding, which comes from the state/county where people actually live/work.
The narrative that rural counties are extremely self-sufficient is utter-nonsense, cult-like thinking. They don't have the population, tax-base, or non-individualistic thinking to do anything at all. They're dead in the water without outside funding, which comes from the state/county where people actually live/work.
I'm confused, are we talking about the electoral college system, or about Oregon?
I mean their statement can be generalized to both but they are talking about the urban centers in Oregon.
Sure, but if they feel that way and if they actually think Idaho will be more aligned to their values then it's not far away and it looks a whole lot like Eastern Oregon. These symbolic votes won't change anything for them. Ironic that a lot of these folks are in the "love it or leave it" camp.
Because voting is easy and moving is hard.
Idaho has become very expensive in the last few years. It's basically Western Wyoming, but for poors.
More expensive than Oregon? What parts of Idaho? It's a big state with lots of empty space hard to imagine that it's all expensive.
There is more than just 'exit'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
Doesn't Eastern Washington also have a similar demographic? Maybe combine them too.
Here is a proposal from greateridaho.org: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea...
It includes chunks of OR and CA but not WA for some reason. It may be explained in the doc.
It includes chunks of OR and CA but not WA for some reason. It may be explained in the doc.
It’s explained in their FAQ:
> Idahoans are very concerned about keeping their state as conservative as possible. They had 2.46 conservative votes per liberal vote in the 2016 presidential election, but eastern Washington only had 1.43.
> Moreover, eastern Washington has a population of 1.6 million in 2017, as compared to Idaho’s population of 1.7 million. Idahoans don’t want to be outvoted by others in their own state, so they’re not likely to want to include such a large population into their own state. If Republican-voting southern Washington state is included, that’s an additional 0.8 million.
> When we created the modern Greater Idaho proposal in 2019, we searched diligently for any possible combination of Washington State counties that would be both as prosperous and as conservative as Idaho. We only find this group of three counties: Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties. We are including these counties in our proposal.
> Here is a plan for rural WA liberty that is more likely to get approvals than joining Idaho is: https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become...
https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/
> Idahoans are very concerned about keeping their state as conservative as possible. They had 2.46 conservative votes per liberal vote in the 2016 presidential election, but eastern Washington only had 1.43.
> Moreover, eastern Washington has a population of 1.6 million in 2017, as compared to Idaho’s population of 1.7 million. Idahoans don’t want to be outvoted by others in their own state, so they’re not likely to want to include such a large population into their own state. If Republican-voting southern Washington state is included, that’s an additional 0.8 million.
> When we created the modern Greater Idaho proposal in 2019, we searched diligently for any possible combination of Washington State counties that would be both as prosperous and as conservative as Idaho. We only find this group of three counties: Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties. We are including these counties in our proposal.
> Here is a plan for rural WA liberty that is more likely to get approvals than joining Idaho is: https://redstatesecession.org/washington-state-should-become...
https://www.greateridaho.org/faq/
Geez, they aren't even hiding that they're gerrymandering for a jumbo Republican state (with the added "benefit" that the remaining OR and CA will become even more Democrat). Exactly what the US needs in 2021.
I'm half amused and half horrified.
I'm half amused and half horrified.
Gerrymandering has to do with influencing representation in the US Congress. I think this has more to do with state government, particularly the ability for more people to live under the type of state government they would prefer. Portlanders would probably prefer an even more liberal state government than Oregon already has while eastern Oregonians evidently prefer the Idaho state government to their own.
I sincerely think this is exactly what the US needs: a civil agreement that you people can live over there under the laws that you prefer, while we can live here under the laws that we prefer, and that we coexist as a federation of states instead of just fighting to impose a single national politics on everyone.
I sincerely think this is exactly what the US needs: a civil agreement that you people can live over there under the laws that you prefer, while we can live here under the laws that we prefer, and that we coexist as a federation of states instead of just fighting to impose a single national politics on everyone.
I think "you live under your laws, we live under our laws" is a cop-out that's never going to work as intended. 33% of Idaho voted for Biden in 2020. Unless you're OK with disenfranchising 1/3 of voters, you're not going to have your ideal government. (Of course they same can be said for places like CA - all the more reason why states shouldn't be divided over partisan lines.)
Is it better for states to be divided closer to 55-45 and “disenfranchise” closer to half of the people? Or perhaps we compromise and “disenfranchise” everyone?
Majority rule is always an exercise in the minority not getting their way. Decentralization—i.e. federalism—reduces the size of the minority that isn’t getting their way. If politics is completely national, maybe 49% of the people will be unhappy. If that 49% includes 66% of Idahoans, and you let the people of Idaho decide most issues at the state level, they can be happy and so can the Californians because there’s no need for Idaho and California to live under the same laws.
Besides, someone living in Idaho and voting for Biden may prefer Biden as President but still prefer the state laws of Idaho. And if he doesn’t, moving states is easier than changing the President.
Majority rule is always an exercise in the minority not getting their way. Decentralization—i.e. federalism—reduces the size of the minority that isn’t getting their way. If politics is completely national, maybe 49% of the people will be unhappy. If that 49% includes 66% of Idahoans, and you let the people of Idaho decide most issues at the state level, they can be happy and so can the Californians because there’s no need for Idaho and California to live under the same laws.
Besides, someone living in Idaho and voting for Biden may prefer Biden as President but still prefer the state laws of Idaho. And if he doesn’t, moving states is easier than changing the President.
Isn't it sad that they directly state they want to do this for party reasons? Like, "we only want people who vote for that party in our state". As someone from a country that isn't basically a dual one-party state, it rubs me off as very weird and very anti-freedom, liberty, logic, etc.
I don’t see it as sad at all.
There’s a certain philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of Idaho and eastern Oregon would prefer to live under. There is a different and fundamentally incompatible philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of the Portland metropolitan area would prefer to live under. If the goal of a democracy is to enable the largest number of people to live under the laws and philosophy of government they prefer, this is a move in the right direction.
The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
There’s a certain philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of Idaho and eastern Oregon would prefer to live under. There is a different and fundamentally incompatible philosophy of government and system of laws that most residents of the Portland metropolitan area would prefer to live under. If the goal of a democracy is to enable the largest number of people to live under the laws and philosophy of government they prefer, this is a move in the right direction.
The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
But they aren't talking about a philosophy of government and system of laws, they're talking about a party.
I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation?
What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it!
The American two-party system is fundamentally broken and fucked up. Those people need more reforms and less religious bullshit.
> The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
Or, hear me out... compromise? Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment. I don't think anyone wins besides some politicians who are too stupid to function but will get automatically elected because they happen to have the right party affiliation.
Note: Not American, i don't have a horse in this race.
I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation?
What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it!
The American two-party system is fundamentally broken and fucked up. Those people need more reforms and less religious bullshit.
> The only alternative is for two increasingly polarized parties to try and impose their preferences on the other half of the country. That rubs me as very weird and anti-freedom compared to just embracing federalism.
Or, hear me out... compromise? Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment. I don't think anyone wins besides some politicians who are too stupid to function but will get automatically elected because they happen to have the right party affiliation.
Note: Not American, i don't have a horse in this race.
> But they aren't talking about a philosophy of government and system of laws, they're talking about a party.
Which reflects a philosophy of government and a desired system of laws.
> I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation?
Usually it’s the other way around: parties, politicians, and activists specifically court and/or alienate people based on broad cultural affinities, and once they’ve established those affinities, maybe they can communicate their policy and ideological agendas. Both parties have actually substantially changed their policy agendas over the past few years to maintain those cultural affinities.
> What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it!
This seems like a parody of what Republicans actually believe, but let me detach from the object level a little bit here: it sounds like you really would not, yourself, prefer to live in a state governed by Republicans. Well, you don’t have to!
> Or, hear me out... compromise?
Federalism is a compromise.
> Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment.
Aside from the “lots of guns” thing, this sort of reads as a biased stereotype to me. But I’m trying to avoid the actual object-level political differences here.
It seems by “compromise” what you really mean is, “red states shouldn’t be allowed to decide their own laws”. I somehow doubt you’d be so sanguine about urban Democrat-dominated parts of the country having to “compromise” with those awful, awful Republicans.
Whereas what I mean by “compromise” is—you don’t have to like the other side, or agree with them, or try and come up with a compromise set of policies you can both live under. You can just leave them the hell alone and mind your own business, and in exchange, they will leave you the hell alone and mind their own business.
The US is roughly the size of the European Union, while individual US states are comparable in population to European countries, though a little smaller on average. I think the differences in law and policy between, say, California and Idaho are not as broad as some of the differences between EU member states.
Which reflects a philosophy of government and a desired system of laws.
> I wonder how people like that function. Like, they chose a party, and automatically agree and favour everything that party says? That's weird. If not, like if you only believe in 2-3 of their core things, but disagree with the rest, why do you still talk about party affiliation?
Usually it’s the other way around: parties, politicians, and activists specifically court and/or alienate people based on broad cultural affinities, and once they’ve established those affinities, maybe they can communicate their policy and ideological agendas. Both parties have actually substantially changed their policy agendas over the past few years to maintain those cultural affinities.
> What happens when you have a conflicting opinion with the party? Especially considering the party in question is blatantly anti-science. Take climate change for instance. There are young Republicans that aren't braindead or brainwashed enough to think it's a sham and want it taken seriously, but they're still stuck only with the Republican party as a choice because the the main things they believe in match only with them. And then have to support the party which proudly says that climate change means no more burgers, so it's obviously stupid and wrong and God wouldn't have wanted it!
This seems like a parody of what Republicans actually believe, but let me detach from the object level a little bit here: it sounds like you really would not, yourself, prefer to live in a state governed by Republicans. Well, you don’t have to!
> Or, hear me out... compromise?
Federalism is a compromise.
> Otherwise you'd have half the country living in a backwards, religious law-based, science denying country with lots of guns, high teen pregnancies and child abandonment and mistreatment.
Aside from the “lots of guns” thing, this sort of reads as a biased stereotype to me. But I’m trying to avoid the actual object-level political differences here.
It seems by “compromise” what you really mean is, “red states shouldn’t be allowed to decide their own laws”. I somehow doubt you’d be so sanguine about urban Democrat-dominated parts of the country having to “compromise” with those awful, awful Republicans.
Whereas what I mean by “compromise” is—you don’t have to like the other side, or agree with them, or try and come up with a compromise set of policies you can both live under. You can just leave them the hell alone and mind your own business, and in exchange, they will leave you the hell alone and mind their own business.
The US is roughly the size of the European Union, while individual US states are comparable in population to European countries, though a little smaller on average. I think the differences in law and policy between, say, California and Idaho are not as broad as some of the differences between EU member states.
It actually makes a lot of sense because their issues are mainly with the party that is currently in charge and lately almost every vote in Congress on anything substantive like trillions in stimulus has been along party lines.
Eastern California too, particularly North Eastern. If we gerrymander states by equal numbers of red and blue residents there would be vast rural red states surrounding small blue sub/urban enclaves.
And the red states will pay 'out of state' prices for higher quality universities in the blue areas, leading to even greater segregation along educational lines. (Actually, this is probably already happening...)
I believe there is a separate proposal somewhere being thrown around where Eastern Washington, North Idaho and Western Montana become a state...which really makes sense politically and commercially.
Source: I have lived in North Idaho most of my life...this is not a new proposal :)
Source: I have lived in North Idaho most of my life...this is not a new proposal :)
Couldn't they vote with their feet by selling Oregon and buying Idaho?
As an left Oregonian I think this would be a win-win. Oregon is an extremely liberal state in the valley but outside of metropolitan areas, obviously not.
Our state legislature is regularly shut down and forced to cater to far right views. Like, these conservative congressman refuse to show up and literally shut it down so nothing gets done. Liberal congresspeople in general not willing to do anything besides chastise them for it. So the whole legislature doesn't get big progressives projects done as much as they might otherwise.
I imagine the biggest impediment to the counties leaving is the centrist portion of our legislature not wanting to give up the bargaining power having right winger congresspeople shut things down.
They want their conservative great state with Idaho, go for it. I sincerely hope Idaho can provide as much needed relief for disaster and public funding for fires and such. We do that now but I have to imagine Idaho has a lot less money.
Our state legislature is regularly shut down and forced to cater to far right views. Like, these conservative congressman refuse to show up and literally shut it down so nothing gets done. Liberal congresspeople in general not willing to do anything besides chastise them for it. So the whole legislature doesn't get big progressives projects done as much as they might otherwise.
I imagine the biggest impediment to the counties leaving is the centrist portion of our legislature not wanting to give up the bargaining power having right winger congresspeople shut things down.
They want their conservative great state with Idaho, go for it. I sincerely hope Idaho can provide as much needed relief for disaster and public funding for fires and such. We do that now but I have to imagine Idaho has a lot less money.
Yes I absolutely agree. An to anyone worried about the electoral college and senate, well, those are salvageably crap, and stuff like this will put on pressure for reform or at last "heighten the contradictions".
Even more simply, here's a wonderful grand bargain: DC statehood return for California, Oregon, and Washington boundary shifting. I would take that in a heartbeat.
(PR statehood could sweeten the deal, but leftism says PR ought to be independent, and plain non-ideological pro-democracy me says PR should have a binding statehood vs independent referendum that isn't subject to boycotts to determine what Puerto Ricans actually want.)
Even more simply, here's a wonderful grand bargain: DC statehood return for California, Oregon, and Washington boundary shifting. I would take that in a heartbeat.
(PR statehood could sweeten the deal, but leftism says PR ought to be independent, and plain non-ideological pro-democracy me says PR should have a binding statehood vs independent referendum that isn't subject to boycotts to determine what Puerto Ricans actually want.)
So the whole legislature doesn't get big progressives projects done as much as they might otherwise.
But that’s how it’s supposed to work? If only a portion of your electorate supports progressive projects then it’s not supposed to be easy to pass them.
Your statement is really bizarre.
But that’s how it’s supposed to work? If only a portion of your electorate supports progressive projects then it’s not supposed to be easy to pass them.
Your statement is really bizarre.
Let me give an example, say you you have 61% of the senators so you have a supermajority and can anything you want passed. Ok that's fine. Well says there's a quorum where 70% of senators must be present for a vote.
The very minority party now can just leave and stop anything from happening. That's effectively what the republican did.
You can call it a fair democracy because it's "following the rules" but it's pretty fucked IMO.
The very minority party now can just leave and stop anything from happening. That's effectively what the republican did.
You can call it a fair democracy because it's "following the rules" but it's pretty fucked IMO.
But that’s the point.
People talk about Congressional deadlock, but that’s by design. It’s not supposed to be easy to pass laws unless there is strong agreement.
People talk about Congressional deadlock, but that’s by design. It’s not supposed to be easy to pass laws unless there is strong agreement.
The overflow release valve of a dam is there by design but if it's gushing constantly that isn't necessarily indicative of everything being all sunshine and roses.
I'll take "things that will never happen" for 500 Alex.
My first reaction was that this is against Article IV Section III of the Constitution. But, reading it again shifting borders of existing states doesn't seem to be prohibited. It would be interesting to see how something like this actually played out.
There is precedence. Maine broke off from Massachusetts in the early 1800s and West Virginia from Virginia at the start of the Civil War.
Splitting states is specifically addressed in the section. It just takes a vote of the involve state legislatures and Congress.
Moving counties from one state to another doesn't require Congress be involved as no state is created or destroyed. I assume that legislatures of both states would need to agree to the border change but it isn't something that is addressed.
Moving counties from one state to another doesn't require Congress be involved as no state is created or destroyed. I assume that legislatures of both states would need to agree to the border change but it isn't something that is addressed.
If this did happen, what would be impact on EC votes and House seats?
It will not happen; these are votes for show. Counties do not have the legal authority to jump from state to state.
[deleted]
Probably minimal. The amount of population moving would be tiny.
More significant is the natural resources that the population coinhabits the land with.
More significant is the natural resources that the population coinhabits the land with.
One future pop quiz answer:
Tesla city is the capitol of the State of Jefferson.
Tesla city is the capitol of the State of Jefferson.
Heh, not a lot of Teslas down there. More like F-150 city.
[deleted]
Totally! I am familiar. Have friends and family in the region.
I come to visit them as the tree hugging, bleeding heart, gun toting lefty from lefty central.
Always good laughs. Fortunately we have a good culture on politics. No worries. Not everyone does, and I wish it were more true. Can get along just about anywhere really.
Wonder if the Ford electric F150 will see rapid adoption in that region?
Ford got almost all of it's priorities right. The big screen is a mistake, like delicate work truck type, but maybe the great package overall is not impacted.
I will be curious to see that play out.
I come to visit them as the tree hugging, bleeding heart, gun toting lefty from lefty central.
Always good laughs. Fortunately we have a good culture on politics. No worries. Not everyone does, and I wish it were more true. Can get along just about anywhere really.
Wonder if the Ford electric F150 will see rapid adoption in that region?
Ford got almost all of it's priorities right. The big screen is a mistake, like delicate work truck type, but maybe the great package overall is not impacted.
I will be curious to see that play out.
Ford’s biggest problem with the F150 was using Biden as its salesperson. Someone at Ford didn’t evaluate their consumer demographics properly.
Their biggest customer may end up being the US government (eg. for work fleets). So maybe it was a strategic move? Time will tell.
Next time you're at a national park, national forest, BLM land, or some other federal facility of that sort, check out the brand and types of trucks they have.
I honestly don't know, can you tell me? One thing to consider is that Biden has been very public about transitioning US government fleets to all electric (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/biden-plans-to-replace-gover...), so even if other brands are currently used, it doesn't matter, because they don't sell an electric pickup.
I don't know the exact breakdown, but the Ford F-150 is a very popular truck and the government buys a huge number of Fords, along with Dodge and Chevrolet. You can buy them at auction when the government is done with them. https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucitsrh/
This is a good point. seems that the majority of police vehicles have been Ford historically because if the requirement to buy American. Biden also is pushing a $2M infrastructure bill that is at is core described as for addressing climate change. There will be a lot of vehicles for that.
Yeah, that may not have been the best move. But then again, the F-150 is like a really solid brand. And it's a really great product. They will power through.
I'm curious as to what you think Ford was supposed to do. Were they supposed to tell Biden that the batteries hadn't charged enough for him to drive it? If anything, conservatives who like the F-150 will just ignore him driving it and purchase the thing anyways.
I doubt Tesla city, more like Trump city.
Putin city would be more like it, since the whole split california movement gets pushed hard by russian trolls
California has some very diverse areas with very diverse people with very diverse needs.
I'm not necessarily in favor of splitting California up, but it does make sense to have several smaller states that can better care for the needs of their constituents vs. what we have today where two major cities tend to drive the politics and priorities of the entire state.
I'm not necessarily in favor of splitting California up, but it does make sense to have several smaller states that can better care for the needs of their constituents vs. what we have today where two major cities tend to drive the politics and priorities of the entire state.
can a state hold on to a county by force? Send in state troopers, sack the existing county level leadership and replace it?
Seems like states would have that in their constitutions.
Seems like states would have that in their constitutions.
Those voters will be surprised by Idaho's tax burden. Higher than OR and WA, closer to national norms. Very reasonable.
I've been pitching the idea of an astroturf (fake) tax revolt campaign in Eastern WA, demanding the commies in Olympia adopt a proper conservative tax regime like Idaho's. IIRC, WA State's yearly tax revenue would then be $3b greater.
I've been pitching the idea of an astroturf (fake) tax revolt campaign in Eastern WA, demanding the commies in Olympia adopt a proper conservative tax regime like Idaho's. IIRC, WA State's yearly tax revenue would then be $3b greater.
They'll be surprised first by the fact that they can't actually do this on their own—AIUI, it would require Congressional intervention to reassign land from one state to another.
Idaho votes republican right? And Oregon is a swing state? So moving 5 republican counties from the later to the former would be a good move for anyone opposed to Trump 2024...
As an old style Liberal, it's nice to be able to have my cake and eat it, though I'm not actually American so...
As an old style Liberal, it's nice to be able to have my cake and eat it, though I'm not actually American so...
The last Republican who won Oregon was Ronald Reagan. Although, to your point, LBJ was the last Democrat who won Idaho.
Sour grapes. It the opposite side of the liberals threatening to move to Canada when W or King Oompa Loompa got elected. Just another example of American polarization and unwillingness to see the other guys point of view. They'll keep f*cking up the country with their stubbornness until they get old and die, which fortunately, is fairly near term for the right wingers. Sadly, they'll be replaced by a legion of young people doing the same thing for the left.
Fine. Let them all congregate into a single state with only two senators. That will simplify things a bit...
I don't see how this would be different than states trying to succeed from the US so it likely will just never happen because they don't even have the right in the state constitution.
The best example is how they treat averages: As part of their "win-win" scenario: the new average income for the state of Oregon would rise. As if individuals would actually directly benefit from the average arbitrarily going up.
Inversely, one of the benefits of joining Idaho is the lower cost of living vs Oregon, disproportionally averaging the PDX metro area as their own cost of living.
However, the whole thing is chock full of the assumption that everyone would be happier and better off if elections were less competitive. It's such a weird document in that the group is effectively arguing to gerrymander themselves into a less electorally relevant position.