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.
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.
They have free agency. Why would the state reshape itself to satisfy people who are prisoners to their own psychosis alone?
It seems like you are defaulting to a pretty negative opinion of these people.
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.
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?
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.