Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I've long advocated redrawing state borders, similar to how they're shown in http://www.tjc.com/38states/

The main factor is that cities (metro areas) should not cross state boundaries, because this creates an administrative nightmare. Look at all the problems between NJ and NY because the NYC metro area includes all of northern NJ, but it has its own separate state government.

There's many, many places in this nation where different parts of a state have entirely different cultures, and really shouldn't be in the same state together. "Upstate" NY and NYC are a prime example here, but so are Chicago and rural Illinois, plus maybe the Seattle and Portland areas and the eastern sides of their respective states. Maybe a lot of people would be happier with their states broken up so they don't have their local politics dominated by people hundreds of miles away who don't share their values, and would prefer to team up with similar parts of neighboring states (eastern WA and OR might want to just join Idaho for instance).

themagician is correct though: there'd be little agreement on how to redraw things. My idea for dealing with that is to make it voluntary, at the county level, and proceed county-by-county at moving state lines around, or having referenda elections on larger changes (such as folding Rhode Island either into the eastern half of Connecticut, or combining both of those with Massachusetts). Combine this with an election system that allows people to make multiple choices. For instance, let a voter in Spokane WA rank the following choices in their order of preference: 1. stay in WA with Seattle, 2. Become part of a separate, independent state of eastern WA, 3. Become part of a new state that includes eastern WA and OR together, 4. Become part of a new state that includes #3 and the ID panhandle, 5. Join ID.

The fundamental theme is that people in every locality should have the right of self-determination, something that politicians usually seem to sneer at. If voters in Charlotte, NC don't want to be part of that state any more, they shouldn't have to be, and if they can get the counties surrounding them to join them in creating a new state, or just merging with TN or VA, they should have that right. Of course, there are big issues of feasibility which must be considered. But a lot of break-ups wouldn't be that hard to do, such as separating NYC from upstate NY.




>But a lot of break-ups wouldn't be that hard to do, such as separating NYC from upstate NY.

Ideologically NYC should be separate from Upstate New York -- I certainly agree as a liberal minded person living upstate.

However, it's not as easy as you claim, mainly because without the millions of taxpayers in New York City upstate would crumble faster than it already is.

I can only speak to the northern most counties where I grew up and still live, but most of the manufacturing industry has gone and left ghost towns and social difficulties in its wake (unemployment, crime, drug abuse). The biggest industries are healthcare, tourism, and the prisons (which host inmates almost exclusively from the city).

People around here like to cling to their rural red state values and look down upon city liberals, but if all of a sudden that tax support left we would be up shit creek (the Hudson?) without a paddle.


Maybe, but shouldn't the people of upstate NY be allowed to make that decision for themselves? By saying "no", that basically sounds like authoritarianism, that 20M people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what their governance should look like, rightly or wrongly.

Finally, I'm not an upstate NYer, but it's not just some rural area; there's multiple good-sized cities there, including Buffalo, Rochester, and Albany. There's also a lot of farming there; where do you think NYC gets its food? I live down in Virginia now but I frequently get milk from NY. Finally, I think more rural areas might be happier joining forces with other such areas. Perhaps upstate NY would like to join with Vermont, or with part of northern Pennsylvania (including Erie). (Actually, I'm thinking VT, NH, and most of Maine except the part near Boston would be better off joining into a single state, and also taking the eastern sliver of NYS that borders VT.)

People aren't going to change their values if they have someone else's values forced on them from outside; they have to realize their values aren't working and change them willingly. It's just like how Christianity was suppressed in Russia by the Soviets, and then had a huge resurgence after the USSR fell, and now the Russian Orthodox church is a huge force in Russia today. People in these regions are going to cling to their values even more strongly as long as people in the cities force legislation on them that they don't agree with. The answer is to leave them to their own devices and let them fail by themselves.


I wonder what reason the professor gave for splitting up Alaska into 2 states. The new state Seward would probably have something like 50,000 people or less in it.


Yeah, that one doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to go against the goal of equalizing population between states. I guess they thought it had too much land area, but still with so little population, and so little arable land out of that much land, it makes more sense to just leave it a single state. Most of the land in the northern half is just unusable tundra.


What about a queer person in Eastern Oregon who wants Oregons more progressive laws, rather than living under Idahos?


When in Rome...

If you're that out-of-step with the people around you, you'd be better off just moving, instead of trying to force everyone around you to adopt your mindset. Minorities don't have a right to force their views on the majority, though they do have a right to basic civil rights. But there's only so much change that's feasible: attitudes take generations to change, since you usually have to wait for the people with the wrong attitudes to literally die out.

Also, I'm not saying that eastern Oregonians actually want to join Idaho, I don't know because I don't live in eastern OR. This is just an example. That's why I proposed a referendum with so many different choices: maybe the people there would prefer to join with eastern WA only, and not be part of ID at all.

I would, however, support a tax credit (not deduction) for anyone moving because of redrawn state borders.


> If you're that out-of-step with the people around you, you'd be better off just moving, instead of trying to force everyone around you to adopt your mindset

That's some real victim blaming there. By your logic, if I'm being sexually harassed by my employer I should just change jobs. I shouldn't complain, or try to enact any real, meaningful change and stay in my current job - no, I should voluntarily leave due to their illegal behavior.

I hope you're not a manager or CEO, because frankly your solution to an employee coming to you complaining about discrimination seems to be to just tell them to get another job.

> Minorities don't have a right to force their views on the majority, though they do have a right to basic civil rights

That depends on their views. If your view is backed by the law, then yes, you do have the right to force your view on the majority. I think you have confused the fact the views of many minorities are basic civil rights, like the right to not be discriminated against.

Someone who is trans probably believes they should be treated the same as somebody who is cis. Given that view is enshrined in law, I'm pretty sure they have a right to enforce it on the majority.

> But there's only so much change that's feasible: attitudes take generations to change, since you usually have to wait for the people with the wrong attitudes to literally die out.

Except with your plan, everyone experiencing discrimination has moved away, so these attitudes never die out because there's nobody to correct the behavior in the first place.

> I would, however, support a tax credit (not deduction) for anyone moving because of redrawn state borders

...which would effectively mean the government is subsidizing discrimination. You are bribing minorities to move out of areas discriminating against them, at great cost to them (finding a new job, a new place to live, etc) and at zero cost to those who wanted them out in the first place.


As the employee experiencing the illegal/unethical behavior, you actually would be better off just changing jobs, if you don't have a union or government agency to back you up every moment of the remainder of your career with that company.

It isn't fair, but that's the way it is. If the 800-pound gorilla steals your peanut, you don't fight him for it. You just go find yourself another peanut and eat it more quickly.

Evasion favors the weaker party more than a toe-to-toe, blow-for-blow battle.

It's very difficult to be the minority, no matter where you are, unless you have a synthetic tribe to back you up. You don't have to run away, per se, but you do need to go to ground with your people whenever it becomes necessary. If you don't have enough friends, or the friends you have don't have enough power, you basically have to back down on everything, right or wrong. That's the way the real world works.

You can live in the world that is, and you can dream about the world that you want, but it is unwise to confuse the two.


Depending on what the peanut is, it's probably not good for anyone (including the population at large) for it to be that way. That's why our laws and judicial system should protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


They do protect a very specific minority.

It's somewhat inaccurately referred to as "the 1%".


There's only so much social change you can push within a certain timeframe. In case you haven't noticed, there's a huge backlash now against many of the changes you're talking about, especially the whole trans/cis thing. And worse, this is threatening to cause the whole country to turn back to ultra-conservative politics: Ted Cruz is likely to become President, and Republicans have already been sweeping state-level elections. The view that you say is "enshrined in law" is not guaranteed to stay that way, in fact it could very well be overturned soon.

By your logic, people who like marijuana shouldn't move to MJ-friendly states like CO or WA, they should stay where they are and get arrested. Meanwhile, CO and WA are the ones that have actually led the movement to legalize it nationwide by doing it themselves, by thumbing their noses at the federal government, and then proving that not only does it not cause massive crime (since MJ was banned based on the assertion that it causes black men to rape white women), but it also brings in huge tax revenues and massively benefits the economy of the state. Now other states are trying to copy them. According to the logic of federalists like you, these states should never have defied the federal government.

As for changing jobs due to sexual harassment, there's only so much you can do even though it is (rightfully) illegal. If you do get them in trouble for illegal behavior, and then you continue to stay in this job with a sexually harassing manager, exactly how nice of a work environment do you think it's going to be? You don't think they're going to do everything they can to make you miserable? Why kind of masochist would stick around in a place like that?

>I shouldn't complain, or try to enact any real, meaningful change and stay in my current job

Your problem here is that you seem to think that you can actually change peoples' thinking. You can't. You can only punish their bad behavior when it goes over the line. They're still going to hate you and make your life miserable in ways that aren't quite illegal, or can't be proved.

>I hope you're not a manager or CEO, because frankly your solution to an employee coming to you complaining about discrimination seems to be to just tell them to get another job.

This makes no sense: you're talking about a case where you're being sexually harassed by your employer (your words), not by a coworker. If I'm your manager and I'm sexually harassing you, how much good do you think it'll do for you to come to me and complain about it?

It's simple: if you're being harassed by your employer or someone your employer condones, then you gather evidence and file suit, while finding a new job. Expecting evil people to change is silly. However, if it's just some low-level coworker, then still gather your evidence, but if management seems amenable, present it to them because they'll probably investigate and terminate the asshole.


> Minorities don't have a right to force their views on the majority, though they do have a right to basic civil rights.

That will probably be a relevant point in another 200 years when we've addressed the "basic civil rights" thing. As of 2016 it's a bit theoretical still.


Sure just give them a six figure Bay Area tech job so they can afford to move.


Portland doesn't cost nearly as much to live in as the Bay Area.

And you do realize there's other places in the country to live, right? There's tons of moderately-progressive cities across the nation that don't cost that much. Austin is a pretty good example.


The point being that moving is expensive in general. I recently moved back to Portland from the Bay Area for a decent paying tech job, and it still cost me an arm and a leg. A lower cost of living doesn't mean that it's cheap to move. Also people need to learn to live with minorites and give them rights. Applying radical Wilsonian determination to the US sounds very libertarian.


No, it'll be free to move. Did you miss the part about a tax credit that I proposed?

As for living with minorities, there's only so much you can legislate, and if you push too much, you get a big backlash and the next thing you know, Republicans control both houses of Congress, state legislatures, and Ted Cruz is President.

There's a lot of things people need to do. They need to abandon hip-hop music and religion too, and they also need to build a Moon base, and they really need to build me a giant mansion in Hawaii. I'm going to be waiting around a long time for people to do all these things I think they need to do....

>Applying radical Wilsonian determination to the US sounds very libertarian.

And trying to marginalize people you don't agree with sounds very authoritarian.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: