yesBoot

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.

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?

Why should the rest of Oregon change to satisfy voters of a non-binding resolution?

They can get a Uhaul and go.

Why bother putting real costs on the state to appease people with freedom of agency already?

It does not matter.

They have no power in our system to simply upend norms as they choose.

They can pack up and move themselves if they don’t like it.

The onus is not on everyone else to cater to them. It’s to abide laws as they are written within our constitutional system of elections and statutes overseeing them.

I’m not saying that’s ideal. I’m saying that’s how it works.

Down votes do nothing to make it any less true.

If these folks would like to change that, I’m sure blue urban areas and states would love to renegotiate their wealth being extracted to fund rural communities.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...

Ironically, Idaho is a bigger grifter on Federal welfare than Oregon.

So they want a more conservative way of life? Which appears to mean “more welfare for me”.

If they dig into the history a bit they’d learn rural life was subsidized to begin with, with the government paying business to move out of urban areas.

Using government to change the rules for all is not “little government”. Upending state borders out of spite is hardly a “conservative” solution.

Their entire platform is laughable given the reality.

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.

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.

Why must drugs be illegal?

Is it everyone else’s responsibility to protect you and your sensibilities?

It hasn’t prevented folks from consuming them, or becoming addicted.

If I’m childish for the use of a euphemism, what would you call living in an idealized reality that’s never existed?

What’s great is all these exceptional, gritty people will put the work and expectations on everyone instead of simply moving to Idaho themselves.

For most folks in Portland, pandemic aside, it’s been life as usual.

I have yet to encounter lefties in my SE hood terrorizing anyone.

Plenty of Trump caravans last year, waking us up, shooting guns.

All from outside the city.

Sure violence is up but it’s up all over. A side effect of a nation coddling old wealth, leaving the masses to rot.

The war on drugs put people in prison for emotional belief those people were morally inferior.

It rightly so should be abolished.

To be replaced with trained medical help, detox programs, and a conversation about morality not tethered to superstition, or black and white judgments.

But the fundies, acting out of emotion, prefer boxes.

It’s all emotion since humans are motivated by such. It’s the outcome that should be judged.

you’re all over the map talking about grandparents moving out (which implied to me you meant blood relatives), now you’re on about an social wide norm of random old people.

But since you mention it, I DO have a “random old person” watching my kids right now as I live thousands of miles away from my biological parents for now.

There are daycares being busted for neglect and abuse so industrialization is hardly a solution to the problem of finding the right person.

I’m done with the patronizing attitude. Have a good day.

Edit: yes down vote me for not agreeing with you, and having a reasonable rebuttal. Weird flex, but ydy.

Point to where I wrote they had to live with the family?

Anecdotal, but all my elders who committed to supporting their grand kids; taking them to soccer and such, lived on their own into their 90s.

The ones that died before 80 had turned into hermits, spending their last few months in industrialized care homes.

Being obliged to contribute to communal work may come along with cognitive health benefit.

I don’t have an issue with caretakers being relied on for difficult health reasons. But are we creating health problems through social norms?

“Retirement” is a recent invention.

Before the last generation or so, the elderly moved into family support roles.

Given that we’re bending over backwards to inflate the wealth of older investors, deflating the buying power of the younger generation in exchange, is enabling retirement a great idea?

It sounds amazing, right? But why must the youth honor the elder generations contracts at their expense?

Why must we “wait” until we can live a free adult life? Just kidding; it’s to prop up the choices of the past as I said.

There are embedded social norms that need a fundamental rethink.

Population decline was greater in 2018 and 2019 than 2020.

Even then it was tenths of a percent.

Are sure “exodus” is the right word?