Live data from Hacker News

Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

upi.com

351–360 of 673 posts

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#351
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#352
post #220

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#353
post #338
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#354
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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".

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#355
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#356
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

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 a…

> 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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#357
post #315
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Well for one, House representatives are apportioned based on population.

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#358
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reading comprehension skills are terrible. 1. In this hypothetical situation, the cheaper food comes from abroad, now that there are no import tariffs. 2. I never said subsidies aren't necessary: I don't know how you can infer that point from what I wrote. I said that subsidies exist to protect American farmers, so American farmers should stop complaining about those who fund them. American farming is as profita…

Have you considered just how much of the international surplus the US produces, and how much of the total production it currently consumes? I suspect running the numbers would indicate a clear international need for the US breadbasket, and not a decrease in overall cost due to a large drop in supply.

The US is only the world's largest producer of corn, and of that, 40% is turned into fuel (ethanol) and 36% is fed to animals. 20% is exported, where again a significant amount is used for animal feed & ethanol.

So meat and maybe gas would become slightly more expensive but the world would most certainly not starve.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#359
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

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.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 centraliz…

The natural endgame for that is to place all governmental function at the federal level.

It’s a delicate balance that needs to be constantly observed and adjusted. That’s why politics is messy.
Post reply on HN