Remiel

Neither do I care, nor am I talking, about Jordan. I mean, with regards to only the Palestinians, what parts of present day Jerusalem could, at least hypothetically, be redesignated as belonging to a seperate municipality belonging to a future Palestinian state on the basis that they were not part of the Jerusalem of yesteryear that belonged to the ancient Jews.

Weak, man. Weak. Crying about people calling you names when you have repeatedly implied that you would have most of the people on this forum killed if you had the chance? I would call it a joke, except for the common refrain that truth is often stranger than fiction.

There is some meritous stuff in there, but a lot of stuff that is really just wishful thinking as well. For instance, it would be nice if there was some convenient way to get battle hardened troops. But starting/joining wars you do not really want just to get a little better at the ones you do is crazy in todays environment. Also, peacekeeping does need to be reinvented, but the idea that that can be carried out by people like the RCMP is just dumb. Peacekeepers work in war zones. RCMP is not capable of dealing with that, and they never will be, and never should be. If you need something between a solider and an cop, we should invent one, not try to shoehorn RCMP into a role they are not suited for at all.

Mr. " Canada " " vision " and the Monroe Doctrine should both be shoved where the Sun does not shine on them.

What would you consider non-abritrary? Surely there are large swaths of land throughout Jerusalem that were not surrounded by the city walls when Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews in antiquity. The " indivisibleness " of Jerusalem seems to be based more on the name than on the foundations left by inhabitants of ages past.

I do not quite understand what you mean they believed. The way we typically think of " races " is constructed. I wonder if perhaps an apt analogy would be to say that the relationship between race and real genetics is somewhat like the relationship between Freud and real psychology.

That is real funny coming from you. Go back and look again, genius. I also highlighted the part that says that a state is within a geographic area NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER POLITICAL AUTHORITY. Which means, in English (which you plainly do not understand), that if Canada were subject to authority of aboriginals, it would NOT QUALIFY for a STATE since it would not be THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY within that AREA. If you want to keep spouting your bullshit, go start your own forum. You can wallow in your incompetence there.

You could not be more wrong.

You, sir, are a moron. That is the only reasonable explanation for posting something that is a blatant contradiction. If you do not have land, you are not a state. So feel free to stop your idiotic rant about how Canada is a nation state with no land. That is an oxymoron. Oh, and by the way: . . . Here is another reality check for you, you twit: . . .

Also, you should read the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples more carefully: In other words, you cannot reduce Canadians to a landless people in pursuit of aboriginal rights, as that would effectively remove what is meant by " self determination " . Just as Israeli and Palestinian " self determination " is fundamentally tied to lands within Eretz Israel. Emphasis mine. You cannot have a right to participate in a state which does not exist, which is what you claim of Canada.

The Crown would be abandoned by the people of Canada long before anything approaching your lunacy came to fruition. This continent has had revolutions before, and it could again if the situation called for it.

I think far too much is made of the 72 virgins line. I roll my eyes every time I hear it. And I seriously doubt that it is the major motivating factor for pretty much all but those who would count as clinically insane. Monotheistic religions are not just about getting cool stuff, they are about serving " God " . Someone who kills for 72 virgins hardly counts as a religious fanatic in my book, because they are not killing for the perceived rightness of their actions, but rather for the reward. Take a hypothetical case: Say you see someone drowning in the river, and you know if you save them you will be showered with accolades, rewardly handsomely and treated like a hero. The right thing to do is to save the person. However, if you save them because you want the accolades and rewards, you have failed at being a good person. Goodness relies on doing it because it is the right thing to do. If people are becoming suicide bombers because they want the virgins, they are in fact failing at being " good Muslims " (what they would count as good in their twisted notion of how things are). So, to harp on the 72 virgins deal is to basically say they are equivalent of being bad Muslims, unreligious, or so on. Which, I think, would be really odd, because we usually ascribe to them religious fanatacisim.

Double post.

Sovereignty is over territory, not people. It has not been for a very long time that there was such a thing as the " King of the Scots " , or " King of the Greeks " . Now it is " King of Scotland " and " King of Greece " .

Why? Proportionately, there are more people represented by each of those seats than every one specifically allocated to PEI.

This makes no sense. A nation is nothing other than the people who make up the nation. You are making it sound as if you think a nation could exist without people. I was not referring to Iroquois being stateless. I was referring to Canadians being made stateless.

That is ridiculous. Old people already have the most influenced, and they tend to be biased more towards the right than the average person. As well, it virtually guarantees that anyone who has denied the opportunity to excel when they were young will be unable to become a leader when they are old. Women never would have become legislators if a system like this was in place because they were denied the opportunity to contribute as much as you propose would be needed.

Have you ever heard of the book Jennifer Government? Though it is not necessarily a super realistic dystopian future, it is one in which mega corporations (two, specifically) basically rule, though the government still nominally exists. Everyone's last name is that of the company they work for.

True, but that is not necessarily a good measurement of what they will do in the future, or the repercussions. Ludwig at least is rather more predictable. His targets are all oil and gas.

Most things in the world do not have a " defined threshhold " , yet people have a good idea what is happening when they see it. Tell me, what is the " defined threshhold " for a major terrorist attack? 2? 50? 100? 375? 681?

I was not comparing to natives in the US in the 60s. Some particular people you may be familiar with may have had the right to vote in the 60s but they sure as hell were not treated as citizens in many places. Your new example makes it seem like you completely missed the point of what I just said. But you inversion question is just strange. If Canada is not accepted as a democracy then everything the West is based on is a complete lie because it sure as hell is treated the same as every country that is. You really have no sense of perspective if you do not think that a major Western country suddenly changing so that 90% of the people did not have any role in recognizing the government of the land they live in would not be a major shakeup of the world order.

You mean the historical fact that most Western countries sucked the big one over racial issues back then? Tell me, what exactly was happening in the 1960s in the United States? You need to think more of " democracy " in the Lockean sense in which everyone in principle has a say in how society will be run. This is is different from what we think of as day to day voting. It is the same principle by which native communities are entitled to have their traditional forms of government, which are not " democratic " in our every day sense, but are in the Lockean sense because presumably that is how they want their government to be organized.

Where did I say or imply that? Treament of natives has historical been, if I may use the vernacular, a total fucking crapshoot. That does not exempt anyone from treating anyone, even if they have been wronged by them, according to basic democratic principles.

Sorry guys, but I am going to put on my " criticizing jerk " hat here with these suggestions and say why I think most of them just would not work. This is a terrible idea. It is circular. Contributing more is not a good measure without being able to judge the quality of the contribution. Yet, to judge the quality of contribution, you have to have a system in place for who gets to determine what counts as quality. Under your system, those would be the people who contribute more. So, the people who contribute a ton of crap get to judge that their crap is worth more than other peoples good policy. We could talk about this, but I do not think it behooves us to invent an electoral system for a world that does not exist, if it ever will, and instead try to focus on this one. I think this shares a similar problem to the first in that there is no internal way to decide who gets to make the first decisions. Someone has to judge what counts as merit in the first place. Who judges the judge? In such a system, every citizen must also be a shareholder. That may be sort of implied but it must be explicit. I wonder though how you would manage the dividends. Is there one share for every citizen, with all other considerations handled through salaries? You are going to have to get a slyer than that if you want just a system to work. It would be about three nanoseoonds before the list of answers appeared online for anyone to just look at and copy from.