Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[The Two Jerseys]

Depends on circumstances. If county officials and residents make it hard enough for Oregon to maintain control, they'd probably give up and let them leave.

What are they going to do exactly? Decide they won't abide by the authority of the governor or state legislature?

It's not choosing your government when other people choose it for you. It is the right of people to choose the manner in which they are governed. This right is not compatible with that of centralized power as manifested in the state. The nature of the democratic nation-state is logically incoherent, the state is said to be based on the right of popular sovereignty, but the power and rights of state and sovereignty belong only to the centrally elected government.

You like others do not understand the meaning of the phrase consent of the governed. Claiming the government was chosen for you by others and because your candidates lost means you did not consent is not what it means nor is it how democracy works.

They had an election and their party did not get a majority nor did they win any statewide office.

If you're going to keep going Inigo Montoya on us, then you better define what you think "consent of the governed" is.

[Immortan Khan]

They should be allowed to, the premise of popular sovereignty should dictate that the public is allowed to choose their government, even if that flies in the face of centralized power.

Do you not see a problem that if you gave them their wish you'd have territory of one state within another? You don't foresee any issues with that?

Countries have exclaves and the US already has them with Indian reserves.

[San Lumen]

What are they going to do exactly? Decide they won't abide by the authority of the governor or state legislature?

You like others do not understand the meaning of the phrase consent of the governed. Claiming the government was chosen for you by others and because your candidates lost means you did not consent is not what it means nor is it how democracy works.

They had an election and their party did not get a majority nor did they win any statewide office.

If you're going to keep going Inigo Montoya on us, then you better define what you think "consent of the governed" is.

Do you know what it means?

[The Two Jerseys]

If you're going to keep going Inigo Montoya on us, then you better define what you think "consent of the governed" is.

Do you know what it means?

I asked you first.

[Punished UMN]

If you're going to keep going Inigo Montoya on us, then you better define what you think "consent of the governed" is.

Do you know what it means?

You're the one who thinks it means something, so you tell us.

[Insaanistan]

There’s secesh on the other side of the Mason-Dixon? Huh. Who knew?


(This a joke. Please do not remark about the faction people in the Northwest generally aren’t seen as northerners or about how this has nothing to do with civil war like secessionism.)

[San Lumen]

Do you know what it means?

I asked you first.

The general definition refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

[Punished UMN]

I asked you first.

The general definition refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

Okay, now answer my question, how and when is that consent given, and how can one revoke that consent?

[The Two Jerseys]

I asked you first.

The general definition refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

Now explain how that doesn't apply here.

[San Lumen]

The general definition refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.

Now explain how that doesn't apply here.

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

[Punished UMN]

Now explain how that doesn't apply here.

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

1) If consent is given by voting, then if no one voted in these counties, would that make their secession legal?
2) If consent is given by living in the state, what of people who have no means of leaving? What if people don't want to consent to *any* government? Does existing mean giving consent to a government?
3) If consent is given just by living somewhere, then democratic process is irrelevant to the process of giving consent. A dictatorship acquires consent as long as its people stay.

My point is that the public does not consent to be governed, the government existed long before them, the government is the one that consents to let them be there. Ask the indigenous.

[San Lumen]

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

1) If consent is given by voting, then if no one voted in these counties, would that make their secession legal?
2) If consent is given by living in the state, what of people who have no means of leaving? What if people don't want to consent to *any* government? Does existing mean giving consent to a government?
3) If consent is given just by living somewhere, then democratic process is irrelevant to the process of giving consent. A dictatorship acquires consent as long as its people stay.

My point is that the public does not consent to be governed, the government existed long before them, the government is the one that consents to let them be there. Ask the indigenous.

What do you propose as a solution if this idea of consent doesn't exist? isn't their desire to leave meaningless then by your own standard?

[Immortan Khan]

Now explain how that doesn't apply here.

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

Yeah because in decades past people viewed the government as legitimate even if their party lost. The government still had consent to govern as a result. Clearly for the people of these counties that consent is no long present.

[Punished UMN]

1) If consent is given by voting, then if no one voted in these counties, would that make their secession legal?
2) If consent is given by living in the state, what of people who have no means of leaving? What if people don't want to consent to *any* government? Does existing mean giving consent to a government?
3) If consent is given just by living somewhere, then democratic process is irrelevant to the process of giving consent. A dictatorship acquires consent as long as its people stay.

My point is that the public does not consent to be governed, the government existed long before them, the government is the one that consents to let them be there. Ask the indigenous.

What do you propose as a solution if this idea of consent doesn't exist? isn't their desire to leave meaningless then by your own standard?

Anarchism or just straight up admit that power derives from the state. Either one would be more intellectually honest.

Also, doesn't it sort of betray that I'm right when your only response is to ask what the alternative is rather than to try to rebut my point?

[Immortan Khan]

Why are the borders of US states so sacrosanct to you anyway? You're treating them like they are sovereign states, not internal administrative divisions. Countries change borders and scopes of internal administrative regions when it's best to do so.

[San Lumen]

Why are the borders of US states so sacrosanct to you anyway? You're treating them like they are sovereign states, not internal administrative divisions. Countries change borders and scopes of internal administrative regions when it's best to do so.

Never said it was but the state legislature is never going to agree to indulge this stunt.

[Immortan Khan]

Why are the borders of US states so sacrosanct to you anyway? You're treating them like they are sovereign states, not internal administrative divisions. Countries change borders and scopes of internal administrative regions when it's best to do so.

Never said it was but the state legislature is never going to agree to indulge this stunt.

So then why get worked up about it?

[Galloism]

1) If consent is given by voting, then if no one voted in these counties, would that make their secession legal?
2) If consent is given by living in the state, what of people who have no means of leaving? What if people don't want to consent to *any* government? Does existing mean giving consent to a government?
3) If consent is given just by living somewhere, then democratic process is irrelevant to the process of giving consent. A dictatorship acquires consent as long as its people stay.

My point is that the public does not consent to be governed, the government existed long before them, the government is the one that consents to let them be there. Ask the indigenous.

What do you propose as a solution if this idea of consent doesn't exist? isn't their desire to leave meaningless then by your own standard?

He makes an interesting point about “consent of the governed”. We wouldn’t say you had consent of the participants of an orgy if 80% of the participants gave their consent to have sex. You wouldn’t consider a person being an honest businessman if 85% of the people he got money from he had their consent to take money from their checking account to pay the bill, and 15% he just took it whether they liked it or not.

But, functionally, no governmental system has true consent of the governed in the way consent is normally used or judged. It just wouldn’t work at all if it did.

[Galloism]

Why are the borders of US states so sacrosanct to you anyway? You're treating them like they are sovereign states, not internal administrative divisions. Countries change borders and scopes of internal administrative regions when it's best to do so.

It may help to know and understand in our system that the states are more or less sovereign, except to the extent they gave up certain powers to the fed by choosing to join and subject themselves to the constitution.

Now that’s not a perfect reading of history (parts were taken by purchase and conquest), but that’s how the system is designed to work.

States are not subdivisions of the fed in the same way counties are subdivisions of the states. States have their own set of powers and authority independent of the fed and generally cannot be commanded to do things by the fed.

[Gallia-]

Do you not see a problem that if you gave them their wish you'd have territory of one state within another? You don't foresee any issues with that?

Countries have exclaves and the US already has them with Indian reserves.

Alaska is a better example since it's the most obvious American exclave. The reservations are more like protectorates, since they're neither states nor territories. They even have their own independent courts.

[The Two Jerseys]

Now explain how that doesn't apply here.

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

And since that election, the people of Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur, and Sherman counties have decided that they want to be part of Idaho instead of Oregon, therefore they do not consider the State of Oregon to be a legitimate government and have withdrawn their consent to be governed by Oregon.

[San Lumen]

They had an election. Their party didn't get a majority nor did they win statewide office. Consent was given by voting and living in the state. Don't like it anymore leave.

Strange how this wasn't an issue for decades and all of a sudden it is now. How many must "consent" for a government to be legitimate?

No one will ever get one hundred percent of the vote in a contested election nor is it common for someone to win every single county in a statewide election. Has it happened? yes but its rare.

And since that election, the people of Baker, Grant, Lake, Malheur, and Sherman counties have decided that they want to be part of Idaho instead of Oregon, therefore they do not consider the State of Oregon to be a legitimate government and have withdrawn their consent to be governed by Oregon.

And the state legislature isn't going to indulge this nonsense. Losing elections is not grounds to be whiny babies and saw we are leaving. Sell your property and move to Idaho. They will glad to have them.

The idiots behind this dont understand how democracy works. why don;'t they get every county thats not blue to leave.

Why don't they encourage the Republicans in Portland, Ashland or Eugene or declare themselves separate from the state too? That's how absurd this whole thing is.

[Constaniana]

I'm not surprised. Having once lived in Malheur County for a short while, one can quickly see they're far more similar to the people east of the Snake River rather than those on the west coast. Towns there are much better connected to Boise than Salem. There's a reason everyone there roots for Boise State rather than the University of Oregon.

[San Lumen]

I'm not surprised. Having once lived in Malheur County for a short while, one can quickly see they're far more similar to the people east of the Snake River rather than those on the west coast. Towns there are much better connected to Boise than Salem. There's a reason everyone there roots for Boise State rather than the University of Oregon.

Boise is a very blue city.

[Dratonis]

This is why I believe democracy is stupid. Your side is oppressing me that's not fair! Meanwhile, that side would oppress the other side if they had the opportunity.

They don't feel represented in their state, so they'd rather join a state that's closer to them, that makes sense.