Now here’s an idea

Rural Oregon seeks to become part of Idaho

I wonder what the process would be to move the North Carolina border North to the latitude of Intracoastal Canal from the Ocean to Emporia?

55 thoughts on “Now here’s an idea

  1. Moving borders is the ultimate expression of state sovereignty. The basic question at law, I imagine, is whether the people of a geographical area have the right to incorporate as they wish. I’d say they do, and more power to ’em.

    It won’t surprise me if all the states in the union redefine their borders. The Constution certainly allows it, as would any natural rights doctrine one might invoke.

    On the other hand, keeping state borders intact might be advantageous, too. It would force people to resolve their conflicts, leading to dialectical solutions. Problem being, forcing people to do anything is contrary to liberty.

    Those are the issues as I see them. Good on the Oregon voters.

    Like

    1. “It won’t surprise me if all the states in the union redefine their borders”

      Interesting. I haven’t looked, but I do know that what is now Erie County in PA (the northern portion of it anyway) used to be part of NY State. Not sure when it changed. But driving south on state and US routes, there are road markers indicating the old state line.

      Like

  2. You people can daydream about organizing more congenial states that would reaffirm traditional white male hegemony or you could grow up and join the 21st century. North Carolina is only a few years behind Virginia politically and even with the new found help you would offer is not going to remain Trump red much longer. So, get real and just think about moving to an existing and more stalwart backward state such as Louisiana or Oklahoma. I am sure you would be most welcome.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Breaking News!!!

    Texas has put secession plans on hold until this recent energy failure is resolved with federal monies.

    Really? What a surprise. 😇

    Liked by 3 people

    1. According to Rick Perry, former Governor and Energy Secretary, Texans are willing to sit in the dark, freeze, and have no water to keep the federal government regulations out of the state.

      Until they need federal relief funds to no longer sit in the dark, freeze, and have safe water.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. This idea brings up an interesting thought. Statehood for Washington D.C.? The electorate would like it to happen to get proper representation in Congress. The Republican’s would HATE it because the District is heavily Democratic.

    I am not saying I support the idea one way or the other. Just pointing out that the citizens of this country deserve proper representation in Government. If the citizens of those counties in Oregon can adjust borders to Idaho, why not DC statehood?

    Like

      1. No, Maryland is already Democratic. We need a couple of actual states to balance the Senate.

        What we really need is an understanding that rural Americans are not superior to urban ones.

        And vice versa.

        Of course, if that ever happens, political parties will have to find actual “enemies” like environmental destruction, domestic and foreign terrorists, financial sector chicanery…

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yeah, just what we need, a state that is 100% urban.

          If urban Americans didn’t have a fetish for forcing their will on rural Americans we might get along, but that isn’t how it has been going.

          People who have never been a mile from concrete in their lives are determined to tell those who live with nature how they must live.

          If it keeps going the way it has, it will be the rural population that shrugs and lets the cities see where their food and energy comes from.

          Like

          1. “If urban Americans didn’t have a fetish for forcing their will on rural Americans we might get along“

            Now THAT’S funny. Rural America has a ridiculously outsized influence that they use to benefit themselves to an egregious extent. SMH….again.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. You are certainly bitter about rural elitism. Yes, if you own a farm you can be self-sufficient.

            You may not have any medicines, hospitals, computers, phones, cars, fertilizer, insulation and books. But you can piss on the folks who do provide those.

            Or invade the Capitol.

            I prefer to be an American who knows that our greatness is due to a cross section of skills from a variety of people. And that we need them all.

            I have great respect for the rural trades and farming. I would expect most decent folks among them feel the same about urban skills and financing.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. If people in cities want to see themselves as elites we can let them have their delusions. But we can’t let them run our lives, especially as they are totally ignorant of rural life, yet at every turn, they seek to micromanage how we work, travel, and what we do for recreation.

            They can wallow in their cites and feel superior all they want, so long as they leave us alone.

            Like

          4. You are not paying attention outside of your bubble. If you would even bother to see the urban viewpoint, it is the cultural elitism of “we are the only real Americans” that you foist on us.

            It is rural elitism that is the weapon of demagogues and it is destroying the country.

            You are part of the problem. Big Time.

            IMHO

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Are you denying that urban elites are meddling in the lives of rural people in ignorant and harmful ways?

            You have a problem with young men shooting each other and their neighborhoods, so instead of looking to the social ills that cause that, you seek to take away our firearms, which are part of our way of life.

            I know you don’t understand why that’s so important but that’s the point, You don’t understand our way of life but you think you are qualified to dictate to us how we live.

            Grievance politics?

            How about we really do have grievances as a result of your attitude that because you outnumber us, you know best.

            Note that OUR young men aren’t shooting each other.

            Like

          6. Geez Don. Have you even bothered to understand that urban Americans are not the enemy?

            No, of course not.

            Republicans need an enemy to distract from real problems. I guess urban Americans are it.

            Personally, I will maintain my loyalty to the nation while you try to secede and divide.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Funny how so many of those rural folks take offense at the big city dwellers but forget that without the taxes paid by those citified people there wouldn’t be any money to carry them through.

            “Tell dat danged gubmint to keep their hands of my Social Security and medicare.”

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “The residential parts DC should be part of Maryland . . .”

        Why? So that black people will remain under represented in Congress? Just another Gerrymander? Neither the people of Maryland nor the people of DC like you solution.
        There is no GOOD reason for DC to not be a state. Only bad ones

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What reason would there be for DC to be a state and Dallas not?

          I agree that the population od DC should have representation in Congress, but as a congressional district in Maryland, where it came from.

          Like

          1. Wyoming has cities, towns and rural areas. It produces things its people need.

            DC produces what? Regulations?

            But again, they should have representation in Congress as part of Maryland. But a single city should not have two Senators

            Like

          2. Your rural elitism is really getting loud. Try to think, just a little for a tiny bit of time. of the US as a country with a lot of Americans trying to make a go of it.

            Don’t strain yourself, of course.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Again, how does what I think harm you? The restrictions city folk place on us do us very real harm. Artificial increases in the cost of energy cast rural citizens thousands each year in costs ad lost employment.

            Like

          4. No. Paul is saying that cows don’t deserve representation in our Democratic Republic. People do. That is not elitism; it is.a truth.

            As far as your idea of “urban elitism”, Len is right. You take your rural elitism to maximum levels of demonization of those who live in cities.

            Yes, it needs to be acknowledged that urban and rural people are different. Their needs are different, their ways of life are different. Their views of what is good and evil are different. What is missing from the discussion is that regardless of where you live, we are all Americans and the us v. them mentality found all over the place has to be replaced with actual discussion based on the needs of ALL Americans.

            Your ideas of urban elitism are not helpful. You never acknowledge the differences, you just say “city people bad; country people good.”

            Liked by 1 person

          5. No, that is not what I say.

            What I say is that we aren’t telling people in cities how to live, but those in the cities, simply because of their numbers, seek to micromanage how those in the country live their lives and what it costs us to do so.

            Legislators in Fairfax are trying to tell me I can’t use my very safe shooting range on my own property, for no reason other than they don’t like what young men are doing with guns in their districts.

            Part of the reason I moved out here was to have my own range, and on a Sunday afternoon you would hear that lots of my neighbors have ranges too. It’s part of our way of life, but legislators who live crammed up next to their neighbors want to control my back yard.

            City people just won’t mind their own business and deal with their own problems on the premise that because they have the votes, they must be right.

            Like

          6. “elitist view of rural Americans.”

            Uh, no. It confirms the FACT that some of these states have more livestock than they do people. Wyoming for example has about half a million people and 1.4 million head of cattle.

            California has 40 million people and 2 representatives in the Senate. The 23 smallest states have 40 million people and 46 representatives in the Senate. THAT is a broken system and explains why a small minority of “rural Americans” keep this country from being all that it could be and it explains why backward red states feed at the trough kept full by the work and enterprise of the blue states.

            You think a minority that must accept majority rule is bad. A majority having to accept minority rule is far worse.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. So 51% is not enough of a majority to govern? Then what is?

            67% of the public believe that the government should do more to fight global climate change. Why should they be blocked by 33%? Because they are not as smart as you?

            83% of the public believe that there should be background checks on every gun sale. Why should they be blocked by 17%? Because they are not as smart as you?

            67% of the public support a $15 minimum wage. Why should they be blocked by 33%? Because they are not as smart as you?

            I could go on and on but it is clear why you oppose democracy – your extremist views on almost every subject are very much NOT popular.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws-new-poll-says

            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Popular does not mean right, especially in an age of MSM propaganda.

            But the natural rights of one person should prevail against the tyranny of the majority.

            Like

          9. “Popular does not mean right.”

            So, as suspected, the reason you hate democracy is because you are smarter than everyone else.

            BTW none of the policy areas I mentioned have anything to do with “natural rights” being violated.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Being able to buy the products we need and want from willing sellers at market prices is a natural right.

            Being able to do as we please on our own property so long as we do not harm others is another.

            Like

          11. Your idea that it is a “natural right” to have the goods you want at market prices without such things as minimum wages is a joke. You have trivialized the concept beyond redemption and made it virtually meaningless because somehow everything you do not like is a violation of a “natural right.”

            And yet such trivialized “natural rights” trump democracy. Which is a round about way of saying that you don’t like democracy because you are “right” about “natural rights” and all those people who disagree are wrong. You must be very, very smart!

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Smart? Of course, but it isn’t necessary

            I postulate that I own my life, you own yours, and so does everyone else.

            If I need to employ someone for a task, and someone is willing to do that task for $5 an hour, from where do you get the power to tell him he cannot do so?

            I am a willing buyer of his labor and he is a willing seller. There may be others who can do the job better but who are not willing to work at that rate.

            The inexperienced worker’s advantage in the marketplace is his willingness to work cheap to gain experience.

            If I am required to pay what the more experienced worker demands anyway, then there is no reason for me to hire the learner.

            So, by imposing the higher wage, you have committed an act of aggression against the inexperienced worker, transgressing his right to sell his labor for what the market will bear.

            It’s not me you have harmed, it is the willing seller of his labor.

            Like

          13. Your “willing” worker is acting under duress if he takes work below the poverty level. YOU are the aggressor by taking advantage of his weak position. You think you own your life and his too.

            The reality is we are not yet a society of monsters so we try to make that man whole with a variety of supports and subsidies. He could not work for $5.00 per hour if we did not. So when you pay a poverty wage you are stealing from ALL of us. That is bad. You should stop.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. So, it is up to you to determine what he can offer his labor for?

            How did you get to own his life?

            Why are you entitled to deny him employment? Remember, he is getting the job instead of the more experienced worker only because he will work cheap to gain experience.

            What you are doing is to take away his chance to get ahead because you disagree with his use of his own life.

            You are stealing his life.

            Like

          15. Anybody who pays for full-time work at levels insufficient to pay for food, shelter and clothing is the thief. He steals the labor of the employee and he steals from the society that pays the difference. Why does the person allow that to happen? Because he wants to stave off starvation. THAT is what you call “willing.” It is what I call “coerced.” It is wrong. You only understand “coercion” when the tax man asks for your share. There are other forms of coercion. Accept $5.00 or not feed your child is one of them.

            We are a wealthy society. Let’s establish a UBI that ensures a basic level of food, shelter and clothing. THEN and only then can we let the market treat human beings the same way it treats machines.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. And yet it is you who wishes to apply force to prevent that person from selling his labor at a rate that is acceptable to him, but not to you.

            But of course, you know what is better for him more than he does.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s