Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Senkaku]

Because in a democracy you don't throw a temper tantrum and change boundaries because you lost an election or multiple ones.

state boundaries in the US have only been changed a few times and this will not even be given the time of day by Salem.

There is nothing wrong with changing boundaries or secession as long as it is democratically done. As I have said multiple times and which you have not addressed at all, if the political center has more power over the governance of a community than the community itself, then the premise of popular sovereignty upon which the constitution and democracy itself are supposedly based is facetious, and we all must acknowledge that state power and legitimacy originates from precedent and/or the ability to apply violence, and not from the approval of the population.

Except in this case letting it go forward would basically be sending up a giant flare to everyone that the political center does not have the power to keep the periphery in line. Do we know how this story ends?

[Punished UMN]

There is nothing wrong with changing boundaries or secession as long as it is democratically done. As I have said multiple times and which you have not addressed at all, if the political center has more power over the governance of a community than the community itself, then the premise of popular sovereignty upon which the constitution and democracy itself are supposedly based is facetious, and we all must acknowledge that state power and legitimacy originates from precedent and/or the ability to apply violence, and not from the approval of the population.

Except in this case letting it go forward would basically be sending up a giant flare to everyone that the political center does not have the power to keep the periphery in line. Do we know how this story ends?

Whether the results of decentralization are good or not doesn't affect whether the ideology behind centralized democratic government is coherent or not. Concern over the ability of the "political center... to keep the periphery in line" really drives home that centralization necessitates dictatorship to an extent, even when you elect the government.

[Senkaku]

Except in this case letting it go forward would basically be sending up a giant flare to everyone that the political center does not have the power to keep the periphery in line. Do we know how this story ends?

Whether the results of decentralization are good or not doesn't affect whether the ideology behind centralized democratic government is coherent or not. Concern over the ability of the "political center... to keep the periphery in line" really drives home that centralization necessitates dictatorship to an extent, even when you elect the government.

Not only is this silly conceptually (centralization = dictatorship, huh? come on), it's so abstract as to be totally removed from the actual issue at hand (separatism and its potential consequences in the US).

[Nakena]

Whether the results of decentralization are good or not doesn't affect whether the ideology behind centralized democratic government is coherent or not. Concern over the ability of the "political center... to keep the periphery in line" really drives home that centralization necessitates dictatorship to an extent, even when you elect the government.

Not only is this silly conceptually (centralization = dictatorship, huh? come on), it's so abstract as to be totally removed from the actual issue at hand (separatism and its potential consequences in the US).

It's "Democratic Centralism" for you if needed.

[Punished UMN]

Whether the results of decentralization are good or not doesn't affect whether the ideology behind centralized democratic government is coherent or not. Concern over the ability of the "political center... to keep the periphery in line" really drives home that centralization necessitates dictatorship to an extent, even when you elect the government.

Not only is this silly conceptually (centralization = dictatorship, huh? come on), it's so abstract as to be totally removed from the actual issue at hand (separatism and its potential consequences in the US).

It's not silly conceptually. If the political center is able to stop any effort to leave it on the part of a group which is a majority in some provinces, then how is it not dictatorship (in the sense of authority)? When you centralize power in this way, then authority does not arise from the popular will, it arises from the center and flows downward to the masses, which is fundamentally no different than in non-democratic states.

[The Black Forrest]

What exactly is the problem here? What bad thing is going to happen?

Some people get to live under laws they prefer?

So you accept all the laws of the UK?

I have been trying to find how they are oppressed. The only comments in that area I have found is they don’t like the decriminalization of drugs and they don’t like taxes.

You don’t redefine states simply because the ex-president had the election “stolen”. Those counties heavily supported the ex-president. I suspect that is a large motivation for this effort. Though I don’t have evidence yet. Like I said the complaints more or less fall under “we don’t like liberals”

Now say Idaho suddenly changes. What then? Move back to Oregon?

It’s stupid. It’s petty. “we lost the election so we won’t to be in this state!!!”

It seems like an overall increase in utility to me. If people want to vote to join a different state that's absolutely fine by me. Yes this includes Texas and Atlanta.

If you have a valid reason; I guess so. Not liking drugs, having to treat gays as people, etc. Not really a reason.

Splitting states simply to only have like minded people only adds to division which means further problems.

Never mind the fact; it’s not going to happen. The people of Oregon have to decide. The governor will not be interested as who wants to see a state shrink that much. Neither will be the Feds as the amount of land does get them involved. This will go down to defeat and continue the crying over the evil liberals.

[Ostroeuropa]

*snip*

What you think are valid reasons is not what others would think are valid reasons. Ultimately they need no reason beyond "Because we want to" in my estimation as an end in its own right for people to have this power.

[The Black Forrest]

What you think are valid reasons is not what others would think are valid reasons.

Ultimately they need no reason beyond "Because we want to" in my estimation as an end in its own right for people to have this power.

What you think are not valid laws doesn’t mean you are correct.

What country on this planet allows people to redefine internal boundaries “because we want to”

No one is preventing them from moving to Idaho. Conservatives used to say (probably still do) if you don’t like it; move!

Again; only having states, counties, whatever have like minded people only adds to division.

[Vassenor]

What you think are valid reasons is not what others would think are valid reasons.

Ultimately they need no reason beyond "Because we want to" in my estimation as an end in its own right for people to have this power.

What you think are not valid laws doesn’t mean you are correct.

What country on this planet allows people to redefine internal boundaries “because we want to”

No one is preventing them from moving to Idaho. Conservatives used to say (probably still do) if you don’t like it; move!

Again; only having states, counties, whatever have like minded people only adds to division.

And also why should they get to drag the people who don't want to arbitrarily change states with them?

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you have a valid reason; I guess so. Not liking drugs, having to treat gays as people, etc. Not really a reason.

Who defines what's valid?

[Senkaku]

Not only is this silly conceptually (centralization = dictatorship, huh? come on), it's so abstract as to be totally removed from the actual issue at hand (separatism and its potential consequences in the US).

It's "Democratic Centralism" for you if needed.

that is not what UMN is talking about

Not only is this silly conceptually (centralization = dictatorship, huh? come on), it's so abstract as to be totally removed from the actual issue at hand (separatism and its potential consequences in the US).

It's not silly conceptually. If the political center is able to stop any effort to leave it on the part of a group which is a majority in some provinces, then how is it not dictatorship (in the sense of authority)?

So now in addition to "Orwellian is when someone is mean to you and Kafkaesque is when someone is mean to you and you have to fill out a form," we have "dictatorship is when you ask for something but the govt says no"? Can we maybe consider that these terms actually have substantive meaning that's being slowly evaporated by using them so loosely? The democratically elected governments of Oregon and Idaho (remember, Idaho doesn't fucking WANT them) declining to redraw county-level administrative boundaries is not tantamount to "dictatorship" in any meaningful sense of the word.

When you centralize power in this way, then authority does not arise from the popular will, it arises from the center and flows downward to the masses, which is fundamentally no different than in non-democratic states.

No, you've just redefined "the popular will" to only constitute the will of people in one part of the polity, without justifying why you're doing this. If there were linguistic, cultural, and ethnic differences, maybe you could make the case that they really are two different peoples, and one is denying the other their self-determination, but Oregon is homogenous enough that you can't really do that. The "popular will" in Oregon (and, again, also in Idaho) seems quite firmly aligned against this; it's just some politically aggrieved cranks pulling a stunt to get media attention.

There's plenty of places to bemoan the falsehood of the concept of popular sovereignty or whatever, but I don't think this is one of them. You're giving undue credibility to a small group of very silly people and an only-slightly-larger motley collection of their followers, whose reasons for "supporting" this stunt are probably as varied as the day is long.

[The Black Forrest]

If you have a valid reason; I guess so. Not liking drugs, having to treat gays as people, etc. Not really a reason.

Who defines what's valid?

*shrugs* you tell me.

Who defines oppression?

I would like to see how these people are being abused.

[Greater Miami Shores]

If you have a valid reason; I guess so. Not liking drugs, having to treat gays as people, etc. Not really a reason.

Who defines what's valid?

lol, I always ask this question on this issue and all issues, lol again. Who defines oppression like The Black Forrest Posted?

[The Black Forrest]

Who defines what's valid?

lol, I always ask this question on this issue and all issues, lol again.

Lol, says the person who rarely if ever answers the questions put to him.

[Greater Miami Shores]

lol, I always ask this question on this issue and all issues, lol again.

says the person who rarely if ever answers the questions put to him.

Lol, according to you leftists not according to me. it is not my problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People views, Republican President Trump is the most Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People President of the USA, since Republican President Ronald Reagan, even has Jewish Grandchildren in his Family, it is not my Problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Trump Posts and views with Pride and Honor, My views are the views of the Republican Party Base, lol again.

[The Black Forrest]

Lol, says the person who rarely if ever answers the questions put to him.

Lol, it is not my problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People views, Republican President Trump is the most Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People President since Republican President Trump, even has Jewish Grandchildren in his Family, it is not my Problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Trump Posts and views with Pride and Honor, My views are the views of the Republican Party Base, lol again.

lol and yet again a non-answer.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Lol, it is not my problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People views, Republican President Trump is the most Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People President since Republican President Trump, even has Jewish Grandchildren in his Family, it is not my Problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Trump Posts and views with Pride and Honor, My views are the views of the Republican Party Base, lol again.

lol and yet again a non-answer.

I did answer your post, I think you just don't like my answer. I am a stronger Supporter of Israel and the Jewish People and so is Republican President Trump and so was Republican President Ronald Reagan, with Pride and Honor, I think you leftists guys don't like any of them.

[Proctopeo]

Who defines what's valid?

*shrugs* you tell me.

What a delightful non-answer, though I suppose we already know what your thoughts are; "invalid reasons" are anything you personally disagree with.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Lol, it is not my problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People views, Republican President Trump is the most Pro Israel, Pro Jewish People President since Republican President Trump, even has Jewish Grandchildren in his Family, it is not my Problem you all strongly disagree with my Pro Trump Posts and views with Pride and Honor, My views are the views of the Republican Party Base, lol again.

lol and yet again a non-answer.

My apologies Black Forrest I accidentally thought I was Posting on the Gaza Strip Thread, we actually agree on this one, lol. GMS.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* you tell me.

What a delightful non-answer, though I suppose we already know what your thoughts are; "invalid reasons" are anything you personally disagree with.

*shrugs* the question is intended to be a distraction for the argument at hand.

You can assume what ever you like.

So far the only reasons I have found for joining Idaho
* they don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* they don’t like taxes (who likes taxes?).

They also don’t like libs.

Still not reasons to split states.

[The Black Forrest]

lol and yet again a non-answer.

My apologies Black Forrest I accidentally thought I was Posting on the Gaza Strip Thread, we actually agree on this one, lol. GMS.

Oh no worries then.

[Kowani]

You can't introduce Electoral College on a state level for the same reason that you cannot ban Electoral College on a national level - it'd be unconstitutional.

Note: Mississippi had a statewide electoral college until last election

[Ors Might]

What a delightful non-answer, though I suppose we already know what your thoughts are; "invalid reasons" are anything you personally disagree with.

*shrugs* the question is intended to be a distraction for the argument at hand.

You can assume what ever you like.

So far the only reasons I have found for joining Idaho
* they don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* they don’t like taxes (who likes taxes?).

They also don’t like libs.

Still not reasons to split states.

From what I understand the catalyst for this secession movement was Oregon legislators bypassing the traditional referendum to pass a bill that was, at the very least, unpopular with the people in the areas seeking secession. That sounds like a decently valid reason to want to split from their state.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* the question is intended to be a distraction for the argument at hand.

You can assume what ever you like.

So far the only reasons I have found for joining Idaho
* they don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* they don’t like taxes (who likes taxes?).

They also don’t like libs.

Still not reasons to split states.

From what I understand the catalyst for this secession movement was Oregon legislators bypassing the traditional referendum to pass a bill that was, at the very least, unpopular with the people in the areas seeking secession. That sounds like a decently valid reason to want to split from their state.

Got a linky?

[Ors Might]

From what I understand the catalyst for this secession movement was Oregon legislators bypassing the traditional referendum to pass a bill that was, at the very least, unpopular with the people in the areas seeking secession. That sounds like a decently valid reason to want to split from their state.

Got a linky?

The event I’m referring to was that Republican walkout thing that happened about a year or two back. Though admittedly I can’t find anything directly saying that it’s one of the reasons, the fact that this happened not too long after makes me think that they’re related. Feel free to take it with a grain of salt, however.