Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 673 posts

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

#631

Post by pharke »

bilbo0s wrote: post #66
krapp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#632

Post by u801e »

xxpor wrote: post #581
u801e wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#633

Post by zdragnar »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #540
zdragnar wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cover…

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.

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

#634

Post by BobbyJo »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #436
BobbyJo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#635

Post by zepto »

nverno wrote: post #542
zepto wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#636

Post by maxerickson »

relaxing wrote: post #625
maxerickson wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#637

Post by ModernMech »

d110af5ccf wrote: post #594
ModernMech wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I thought I was engaging in a conversation with specific people about a specific topic (drug decriminalization). I didn't realize I was engaging in a nebulous discussion ranging to what liberals feel about guns. I don't have anything to say about that topic at the moment. Apologies.

Again, you are missing the point. No one asked you about your particular views on that topic. Rather, a disparate topic was used to illustrate a broader point about the process itself. Surely the broader context is relevant when discussing a controversial issue that tends to elicit strong emotional responses from participants? Burying your head in the sand won't change the fact that there are significant emotional co…

The original poster did: "Now do automatic weapons, straw purchases, felons getting guns, etc."

I wanted to talk about the merits and reasons for/against drug decriminalization, as well as alternative solutions.. You keep telling me that I'm missing the point, but maybe you're missing my point. I'm not interested in the discussion about the broader point of the process itself. Talking about parties and sides and gun control is not the discussion I engaged in. The fact that it's a controversial issue that elicits strong emotional responses from people is not germane to the discussion at hand.

The original poster said: "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."

That's exactly what was happening! I wanted to take part in that. The last thing I would want to do in that discussion is bring in heated tangential topics that would serve to derail the conversation. That's not burying your head, that's staying on topic. There are significant emotional components about this and also as well about guns. Agreed. The original point stands.

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

#638

Post by bagacrap »

dcolkitt wrote: post #524
nickff wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" 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.

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…

what makes you think there light blue neighbor would have them?

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

#639

Post by captainredbeard »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #319
_qwfv wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should non-citizens have a voice in how our country is ran?

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

#640

Post by threatofrain »

CountDrewku wrote: post #202
hackyhacky wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 everyon…

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.

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?

Post reply on HN