Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Punished UMN]

No, I did in fact mean democratic centralism by dictatorship.

You’re just saying “all democratic governance is democratic centralism” lmfao that’s fucking stupid, democratic centralism is a specific way to run a party not descriptive of the behavior of a polity as a whole at all

This is what I mean about redefining the meaning out of words— this is a “taxation is theft”-tier understanding of democratic politics

It's the majority in those counties, which are separate polities. "Oregon" is a social and legal construct, there isn't any essential reason why every community in the state needs to owe allegiance to the state except a paper written and signed in 1859. Once polities exist, they do not have to continue in their existing form in perpetuity.

The popular will is that citizens be given as much pomegranate juice as they want, for free. It’s the majority position in this room, which is a separate polity from the next apartment over. “New York” is just a social and legal construct, there’s no real reason why every community needs to owe it allegiance!

It shouldn't matter what their reasons are, it is their communities, not those of the legislators in Salem. The idea that seems prevalent, that a paper was signed hundreds of years ago, therefore everyone is bound to its rules forever, is such a bizarre one. If they don't want to be in Oregon, or even the United States for that matter, why should people who don't even live there be able to stop them from seceding? Because of some legal abstractions drawn up before any living person was born to consent to it?

Those “legal abstractions” have had real-world impact over the years to an extent I think you can safely say Oregon is more than a collective fantasy or complete abstraction. Yes, polities and their administrative boundaries can evolve, but the question in politics is always should they evolve (and how so), and that usually involves setting out the conditions or reasons in which the evolution you’re proposing would make sense. In this case, I don’t think “I don’t like Portland antifa and their cultural Marxist eco-socialism” is a good enough reason to form a separatist movement, and neither do the democratically elected legislatures of Oregon or Idaho. If these idiots can get some separatist candidates into the legislatures on either or both sides of the border to successfully advocate for their position, or run a successful guerrilla campaign, then they can join Idaho, and not before.

And then, again, it's the same problem I brought up, it's a political institution based on tradition and authority and not democracy. The understanding of democracy as necessitating connection to constitutionalism or a single elected legislature presiding over a geographically defined area from which all political power flows, is more theology than it is sociology.

The other strawmen aren't important to address. The position that the constitutional center of power overrides the democratic desire of individual communities is virtually identical to that of all other countries where certain communities have no power over their political future. If democracy is a principle and not merely a form of organizing the state, then it shouldn't matter what their reasons are for wanting independence, only that they do want independence.

[Punished UMN]

Entertain this hypothetical, if you will: I have certain disagreements with the conservative political culture of the polity in which I reside. Therefore, exercising my right to self-determination, I am going to carve out the hundred or so square metres of my household as an independent state and legalise gay marriage here.

Is society better off if individuals such as myself possess and exercise the freedom to be governed only by polities we wish to be a part of?

If not, then why are we even taking seriously this ridiculous tantrum by a bunch of rural Oregonians who never learned to deal?

What the right to “self-determination” means in the end is nothing more than anarchy.

Correct, and that's a good thing.

[The Lone Alliance]

Entertain this hypothetical, if you will: I have certain disagreements with the conservative political culture of the polity in which I reside. Therefore, exercising my right to self-determination, I am going to carve out the hundred or so square metres of my household as an independent state and legalise gay marriage here.

In that sort of case where it's a civil law and not an economic law you'd be far better off in simply declaring that inside your area you no longer follow the law, taking the policy of a "Sanctuary city\State\Area that many places in the US do when they see the greater laws of the state as being unfair.

Is society better off if individuals such as myself possess and exercise the freedom to be governed only by polities we wish to be a part of?

Except society is filled with people doing things like that all the time. See all the Cities and State that have declared themselves sanctuaries for Illegal Immigration\Guns as an example there. People on both sides of the fence do this sort of thing, just like if you're in someone's house and you witness them doing illegal drugs and then say nothing. If you see someone smoking pot do you demand to see their medical clearance or instantly start dialing the police to get them arrested?

That's the law, why aren't you following the law?

In fact all the civil rights movements of the modern era only came about because people decided only to follow the political laws they wanted to be a part of.

[Albrenia]

Entertain this hypothetical, if you will: I have certain disagreements with the conservative political culture of the polity in which I reside. Therefore, exercising my right to self-determination, I am going to carve out the hundred or so square metres of my household as an independent state and legalise gay marriage here.

Is society better off if individuals such as myself possess and exercise the freedom to be governed only by polities we wish to be a part of?

If not, then why are we even taking seriously this ridiculous tantrum by a bunch of rural Oregonians who never learned to deal?

What the right to “self-determination” means in the end is nothing more than anarchy.

Correct, and that's a good thing.

Anarchy kills itself though. Some arsehole will always use force, or game the system, until he has enough power to take control.

[Punished UMN]

Correct, and that's a good thing.

Anarchy kills itself though. Some arsehole will always use force, or game the system, until he has enough power to take control.

And? At least then power is understood and laid bare instead of mythologized. The way we should approach power and the state (and therefore law) should be more like participants and less like religious followers, but it is not, because in order to make democracy and the state sacrosanct, we have regressed to a more primitive understanding of power and its role in society. The result is that the state is treated less like a tool and more like a god. The way we approach constitutional law and political structure then is more similar to the way we approach theology and ecclesiology.

[Albrenia]

Anarchy kills itself though. Some arsehole will always use force, or game the system, until he has enough power to take control.

And? At least then power is understood and laid bare instead of mythologized. The way we should approach power and the state (and therefore law) should be more like participants and less like religious followers, but it is not, because in order to make democracy and the state sacrosanct, we have regressed to a more primitive understanding of power and its role in society. The result is that the state is treated less like a tool and more like a god. The way we approach constitutional law and political structure then is more similar to the way we approach theology and ecclesiology.

While I agree that things like the worship of the Constitution could do with being made less dogmatic, the world of primitive power laid bare can be a truly awful place. Just ask those who have lived under the rule of small-time warlords and the like.

[Punished UMN]

And? At least then power is understood and laid bare instead of mythologized. The way we should approach power and the state (and therefore law) should be more like participants and less like religious followers, but it is not, because in order to make democracy and the state sacrosanct, we have regressed to a more primitive understanding of power and its role in society. The result is that the state is treated less like a tool and more like a god. The way we approach constitutional law and political structure then is more similar to the way we approach theology and ecclesiology.

While I agree that things like the worship of the Constitution could do with being made less dogmatic, the world of primitive power laid bare can be a truly awful place. Just ask those who have lived under the rule of small-time warlords and the like.

And the solution to that, imo, is not to make the warlords into quasi-deities and enshrine their rule and laws in perpetuity.

[Salus Maior]

My feeling is if you dont like the politics of a state or province move to another that fits in better. These people should move to Idaho instead of trying to change boundaries.

Similar proposals have happened over the decades and none have gone anywhere and I have serious doubt this will lead to any border changes either.

Your thoughts NSG?

I mean, Switzerland literally created a whole new canton because people didn't want to live in the canton they were in (Jura broke off from Bern in the 70's I think). That actually went a long way to easing tensions within the country and both parties were better off for it in the end.

So, why shouldn't the U.S allow the people to redraw borders if the current borders no longer represent the will of the people? Aren't you for democracy, Lumen?

[San Lumen]

My feeling is if you dont like the politics of a state or province move to another that fits in better. These people should move to Idaho instead of trying to change boundaries.

Similar proposals have happened over the decades and none have gone anywhere and I have serious doubt this will lead to any border changes either.

Your thoughts NSG?

I mean, Switzerland literally created a whole new canton because people didn't want to live in the canton they were in (Jura broke off from Bern in the 70's I think). That actually went a long way to easing tensions within the country and both parties were better off for it in the end.

So, why shouldn't the U.S allow the people to redraw borders if the current borders no longer represent the will of the people? Aren't you for democracy, Lumen?

Why not just redraw every state based on political lines? Breakup New York into multiple states. Make Little Rock its own state. Have Harrisburg be part of Maryland.

If you don't like somewhere anymore, Move.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, Switzerland literally created a whole new canton because people didn't want to live in the canton they were in (Jura broke off from Bern in the 70's I think). That actually went a long way to easing tensions within the country and both parties were better off for it in the end.

So, why shouldn't the U.S allow the people to redraw borders if the current borders no longer represent the will of the people? Aren't you for democracy, Lumen?

Why not just redraw every state based on political lines? Breakup New York into multiple states. Make Little Rock its own state. Have Harrisburg be part of Maryland.

If you don't like somewhere anymore, Move.

If the people want to do that, and there's a passing vote for it, why not?

You're sounding like a Republican with that rhetoric. It's a bad argument, people can't just move on a whim; it's an expensive and stressful experience, and it requires that people completely uproot themselves and lose whatever connections they have in their current home. Democracy is meant to let the people have a say in their locality, isn't it? So why can't they say whether they want their locality to stay in one state or another? Or even create a new state?

[The Black Forrest]

Why not just redraw every state based on political lines? Breakup New York into multiple states. Make Little Rock its own state. Have Harrisburg be part of Maryland.

If you don't like somewhere anymore, Move.

If the people want to do that, and there's a passing vote for it, why not?

You're sounding like a Republican with that rhetoric. It's a bad argument, people can't just move on a whim; it's an expensive and stressful experience, and it requires that people completely uproot themselves and lose whatever connections they have in their current home. Democracy is meant to let the people have a say in their locality, isn't it? So why can't they say whether they want their locality to stay in one state or another? Or even create a new state?

If you had your say and the majority doesn’t like it?

So far the arguments have been:

* don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* don’t like the libs
* don’t like cap and trade.

How are they being oppressed?

[Punished UMN]

If the people want to do that, and there's a passing vote for it, why not?

You're sounding like a Republican with that rhetoric. It's a bad argument, people can't just move on a whim; it's an expensive and stressful experience, and it requires that people completely uproot themselves and lose whatever connections they have in their current home. Democracy is meant to let the people have a say in their locality, isn't it? So why can't they say whether they want their locality to stay in one state or another? Or even create a new state?

If you had your say and the majority doesn’t like it?

So far the arguments have been:

* don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* don’t like the libs
* don’t like cap and trade.

How are they being oppressed?

The bar for whether a people have the right to self-governance should be whether they want it, not whether they are oppressed. That's the basis of popular sovereignty.

[Salus Maior]

If the people want to do that, and there's a passing vote for it, why not?

You're sounding like a Republican with that rhetoric. It's a bad argument, people can't just move on a whim; it's an expensive and stressful experience, and it requires that people completely uproot themselves and lose whatever connections they have in their current home. Democracy is meant to let the people have a say in their locality, isn't it? So why can't they say whether they want their locality to stay in one state or another? Or even create a new state?

If you had your say and the majority doesn’t like it?

So far the arguments have been:

* don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* don’t like the libs
* don’t like cap and trade.

How are they being oppressed?

Do they need to be oppressed in order to want to bail on Oregon? If there's a passing vote in the counties, and we're actually working on democratic principle, why shouldn't the public will be followed?

Also who is it helping in Oregon to keep these counties that don't want to remain in Oregon?

[The Black Forrest]

If you had your say and the majority doesn’t like it?

So far the arguments have been:

* don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* don’t like the libs
* don’t like cap and trade.

How are they being oppressed?

The bar for whether a people have the right to self-governance should be whether they want it, not whether they are oppressed. That's the basis of popular sovereignty.

Ok. And if the majority of the state of Oregon says no; you are good with it?

[Salus Maior]

That's the basis of popular sovereignty.

America doesn't have popular sovereignty.

[The Black Forrest]

If you had your say and the majority doesn’t like it?

So far the arguments have been:

* don’t like the decriminalization of drugs.
* don’t like the libs
* don’t like cap and trade.

How are they being oppressed?

Do they need to be oppressed in order to want to bail on Oregon? If there's a passing vote in the counties, and we're actually working on democratic principle, why shouldn't the public will be followed?

Also who is it helping in Oregon to keep these counties that don't want to remain in Oregon?

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

[Punished UMN]

The bar for whether a people have the right to self-governance should be whether they want it, not whether they are oppressed. That's the basis of popular sovereignty.

Ok. And if the majority of the state of Oregon says no; you are good with it?

Yeah, the majority of the state of Oregon, believe it or not, doesn't live in those communities.

[Punished UMN]

Do they need to be oppressed in order to want to bail on Oregon? If there's a passing vote in the counties, and we're actually working on democratic principle, why shouldn't the public will be followed?

Also who is it helping in Oregon to keep these counties that don't want to remain in Oregon?

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

Because it's their land and they live on it.

[The Black Forrest]

Ok. And if the majority of the state of Oregon says no; you are good with it?

Yeah, the majority of the state of Oregon, believe it or not, doesn't live in those communities.

Soooooo their rights override everybody elses?

[Punished UMN]

Yeah, the majority of the state of Oregon, believe it or not, doesn't live in those communities.

Soooooo their rights override everybody elses?

Why does everybody else have a right to their land?

[Salus Maior]

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

The "why don't they move" argument is bad for the reasons I've already said. Also, we're talking about the majorities in multiple counties, do you realize what a migration that would be? Entire counties emptying just because Oregon wants to hold onto some land? The land belongs to the people which hold it, not the state.

And disliking the central government is a fine reason for wanting to cede from it. That's what started this country, after all.

[San Lumen]

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

Because it's their land and they live on it.

Then sell it and freaking move to Idaho. No one is keeping them there against their will.

[The Black Forrest]

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

Because it's their land and they live on it.

That’s now how it works. I own land. I can’t declare I want to be a part of Hawaii

[Necroghastia]

Nobody is preventing them from selling and moving. Why do they get to decide where the land belongs? Especially when the motivation is mainly I don’t like libs.

Because it's their land and they live on it.

isn't it oregon's land

[Punished UMN]

Because it's their land and they live on it.

isn't it oregon's land

Oregon isn't a person, it doesn't live on land. Legal constructs don't have rights, people do.