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

651–660 of 673 posts

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

#651

Post by klyrs »

samatman wrote: post #355
buzzert wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inj…

Having known somebody on methadone... it's not great. It's just as addictive as heroin, but instead of making you feel good, it makes you feel like shit. And then if you don't take the drug that makes you feel like shit, you go into withdrawal again.

If the goal is to punish somebody for the rest of their life for having fun on an illegal substance, then mission accomplished. If the goal is to remediate the user so that they can be a productive member of society, then it's an utter failure. Sometimes people don't get hooked on the methadone itself, but it's a very delicate balancing act and not at all guaranteed

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

#652

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

jfengel wrote: post #283
kingsuper20 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'll be honest, I do find it kinda weird that we have 50 different definitions of "murder" in the US, and a lawyer from the next state over is legally forbidden from helping you out if they haven't also studied for your state. And I find it equally weird that each separate state gets to define health care regulations, such that separate companies are required in each different state. Lots of duplicated efforts. There…

Well the cultures of the states differ significantly. It makes sense to me that regional variation would reflect in laws.

I grew up in southern MO. Arkansas was only about a 40 minute drive away, but I can always tell when I'm there compared to at home. The people dress and look a bit different, the houses look different, it's just a different culture. California and New York are like alien worlds to me. The idea that such different people should live under the same framework seems like a good way to amplify regional tensions.

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

#653

Post by myWindoonn »

iammisc wrote: post #424
hackyhacky wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional conservative dogma requires the belief that poverty or misfortune follows from an inherent moral failing, never from circumstance. Therefore criminals cannot be reformed, homeless cannot be helped. The only solution is to remove them.

Of course traditional conservative dogma also has extremely strong private safety nets. Just look at Utah and the mormons. Or the Amish. I mean, I understand that many people do not understand this, but I have found that atheists and the unchurched cannot comprehend just how substantial most church support programs are. In my old parish, my wife and I practically lived at the place and when we had our first baby, we…

Who owns the hospitals in Portland? There is no conflict between churches and capitalism, either.

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

#654

Post by URSpider94 »

dataflow wrote: post #622
URSpider94 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the data, but from the data I have seen, the data conflict with the popular (populist) narrative. A lot of people in America seem to believe that the hardworking "real Americans" in the middle of the country are subsidizing the poorly-run coastal liberal enclaves. In reality, the money almost always flows in the other direction; taxpayers in cities are subsidizing the rural-dwellers. This has noth…

I'm confused at how you go directly from "subsidizing" to money flow. By taking a low-paying job that makes middle-class life possible for you, aren't they foregoing income (and thus isn't this costing them)? Heck, push it to the limit—if a farmer's wages were $0, who's benefiting at the expense of whom here? Who's subsidizing who? If you never see the cash, vs. having it deposited and then withdrawn from your accoun…

Here's the point, and I'll lay my cards on the table as being more progressive in the political spectrum. Progressives, by and large, don't actually care that our tax money goes to help a lot of other people. We actually like it, in fact. I do think that I should help subsidize the costs of providing things like postal service and broadband internet to people who live in the middle of nowhere. The paradox is that conservatives and libertarians are the ones who get all worked up about their tax money being spent to help others when, in reality, they are more likely to be net beneficiaries.

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

#655

Post by dataflow »

URSpider94 wrote: post #654
dataflow wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused at how you go directly from "subsidizing" to money flow. By taking a low-paying job that makes middle-class life possible for you, aren't they foregoing income (and thus isn't this costing them)? Heck, push it to the limit—if a farmer's wages were $0, who's benefiting at the expense of whom here? Who's subsidizing who? If you never see the cash, vs. having it deposited and then withdrawn from your accoun…

Here's the point, and I'll lay my cards on the table as being more progressive in the political spectrum. Progressives, by and large, don't actually care that our tax money goes to help a lot of other people. We actually like it, in fact. I do think that I should help subsidize the costs of providing things like postal service and broadband internet to people who live in the middle of nowhere. The paradox is that con…

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, I see what you mean.

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

#656

Post by autokad »

intended wrote: post #602
autokad wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and you somehow think if the US stopped producing food and started importing all of its food, it wouldn't cause famine.

Yes. Provided you don’t do it as some sort of dead shock to global systems. Food production is a modern solved problem. The politics of it is not. No country is giving up food security and voter messaging to the invisible hand of a global market. No one likes corn as much as Americans do, yet its one of your greater exports, simply because of American economic and diplomatic ascendancy.

you are hooked on some serious propaganda. Lets be clear, if the US stopped producing producing food and instead bought it from other countries, it would be the biggest disaster in human history.

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

#657

Post by cratermoon »

sangnoir wrote: post #588
cratermoon wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put it that way on purpose, it's coded language, full of dog whistles. They don't say the quiet part out loud.

It's amazing how some folk deny what the intention is - I guess the terms provide plausible deniability. Sometimes it's " real Americans" or "middle-class Americans", or "people in the heartland" - we all know which demography you're referring to (and everyone else you're excluding).

Also "hard-working folks", "taxpayers", and "patriots"

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

#658

Post by rhacker »

bradleyjg wrote: post #471
rhacker wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason they think it's subsidizing the rich enclaves is because they believe the rich enclaves aren't really working - they're just generating revenue from information advantage. We're just building systems of control and making money from it. Compare that to them cleaning out a grain cart or chopping up a 300 pound pig. What is work? And why did I make nearly $300 today vs them who will make $300 for tha…

> And why did I make nearly $300 today vs them who will make $300 for that pig that they had to raise for 6 months? Effort has little to do with value. Utility also has little to do with value. See the diamond/water paradox for that second part. There are certainly abuses in our society, rent seeking and outright fraud exist. But this childish rejection of capitalism that’s become trendy lately is tiresome. Capitalis…

> this childish rejection

Insults don't get anyone far.

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

#659

Post by nobodyandproud »

jfrunyon wrote: post #648
nobodyandproud wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. It also separates health cost, whose administration is expensive for businesses, from working capabilities of empl…

> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". > Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insuran…

> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits".

I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way.

What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever.

If you or your family member have a chronic but treatable condition such as diabetes, this a life and death decision.

It makes zero sense to give employers such leverage.

Likewise, employers are less likely to cover individuals that will raise insurance costs.

Post reply on HN