3 ms·

Rule of law, not majority. It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide electio

Rule of law, not majority. It may look that way should “one side” or the other control an official political body, but at least for now, we still abide election laws insuring the “rule of law” bit.

_-david-_ 5y ago
I don't think anybody is saying thid should happen without following the law so I am not sure what your point is?
- yesBoot 5y ago
  The post I replied to was plainly written. If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated. There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.
- yesBoot 5y ago
  It’s not that the laws could not enable this, but none do. They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go. It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
    - yesBoot 5y ago
      The state has an obligation to the people. Not some people who don’t like the state anymore. I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California. It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about. I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me. It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are. This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        It sounds like we have very fundamentally different views of government. If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want? Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?

_-david-_ 5y ago

I don't think anybody is saying thid should happen without following the law so I am not sure what your point is?

yesBoot 5y ago
The post I replied to was plainly written. If there’s nuance and context intended it should be communicated. There is no “rule of majority”. Questioning what should be if they’re simply a majority is just not allowed given our system.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I don’t see how it runs contrary to the rule of law. Im not aware of any legal obstructions that couldn’t be overcome, especially if everyone involved wanted it to succeed.

yesBoot 5y ago
It’s not that the laws could not enable this, but none do. They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  What purpose does the state serve, if not to empower the people. If some regions want to join another state, why not enable them if it is not inherently hostile or damaging to others? Perhaps the rest of the state would be happy to see these people and the land they live on go. It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
  - yesBoot 5y ago
    The state has an obligation to the people. Not some people who don’t like the state anymore. I’d feel this way if it was left leaning folks who want the liberal regions to join California. It’s not about “these people” at all for me except that these people happen to be the ones we’re talking about. I’d appreciate it if an armchair shrink not diagnose me without knowing me. It’s not the obligation of the state as a whole to kowtow to already free people who are feeling captured when it’s their own minds keeping them where they are. This problem is already solved by the US Constitution which allows for them to move between state borders as they wish. It’s not on the whole of Oregon to satisfy them.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It sounds like we have very fundamentally different views of government. If why take for granted that the state has no obligation to them, the question still stands: why not try to give them what they want? Do you view these people as disrespectful of the state the state institutions? Is it a matter of setting precedent or distorting historical legacy? Is it that these people are inconveniencing other citizens by asking for what they want?