August1991

Well, why did you choose to move in to the small town?People voluntarily pay to enter a cinema. Imagine the cinema doesn't last for two hours but rather several years. In fact, it's like joining a club. The decision to join the club is voluntary, but to remain a member, you must submit to the club's will. In one view, we have just defined "government". I would go further and suggest that there may be clubs to which we would choose to be a member before our birth and in which membership would last our whole lives. To me, this is the proper sense of "government". In fact though, the first definition is adequate (and perhaps less contentious). Welcome to the club! But if you don't like it, leave. Agreed, but this is ex post. Ex ante, I'm not so sure.More pertinent, I can see why people might voluntarily agree to restrict their options prior to negotiating an agreement. IOW, we voluntarily restrict our freedom receiving nothing of benefit in return - except the benefit of making the negotiation possible. Examples? Two parties in a divorce agree (commit) not to consult lawyers. Two countries commit to using nuclear weapons in the case of war. Another example? It's as if we both agree to have the Hell's Angels ensure we stick to certain agreements but then we discover that the Hell's are stealing from both of us. You're saying get rid of the Hell's; I'm saying let's figure out how to stop them stealing from us. IOW, on balance, you may be right. They're not worth the hassle.

I prefer Dole's "Stop lying about me" to Bush Snr. The Bushies are one seriously competitive gang. They play hardball to win.

I don't disagree but... The government is an institution that we may choose to submit to.Humans wisely prefer to conduct their affairs in association with others because as individuals, we achieve more. Call this co-operation. We use a variety of associations to do this primarily markets, a family, corporations and the government. IOW, the government is just another method people use to co-operate. It has the peculiarity that it creates a long term contract which cannot be breached. It is the ultimate commitment. I can see why people would voluntarily enter into such a contract. When you move into a small town, you are assessed property taxes to pay for the fire department. This is a form of insurance which could in theory be offered "privately". If it's offered by the municipality, what's the difference? That's one view of "government". I'll go further, you move into the small town and you agree never to leave. That's my view of government and I can see valid reasons for it to exist. Hugo, don't be ideological on this one! As for the others, 1000 years ago a world without the Catholic Church would have been unthinkable in Europe. Well, it has in effect happened. Just because something is here now does not mean it will be here tomorrow.

If one tries to view this from the perspective of a historian writing in the year 2100 (for example), it is hard not to see the past 25 years or so of Canadian history as laying the framework for what can only be some kind of confrontation. Our recent history ressembles so much the lead up to such conflagrations as the US civil war (recall all the various "compromises" from about 1830) or World War I (the Franco-Prussian War and the posturing from 1900). I don't think there will be a violent confrontation but clearly something is afoot. Like in life itself, some events in history just happen and other events have clear antecedents. They seem inexorable.

You might want to read this Wikipedia entry about secession. The BNA Act made no reference to a province leaving Confederation. Indeed, the BNA Act was mute on amendments to itself. Since in fact it was an Act of the UK Parliament, it required technically only a new law in London. Trudeau changed this in 1982 by getting Thatcher to pass an Act of the UK parliament. In effect, the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act of 1982) would be amended by the federal government and/or the provincial governments according to differenet formulae depending on the amendment. The 1998 Supreme Court secession reference in effect said that for Quebec to secede legally, it would require an amendment to the Constitution Act. In this case, the applicable formula would require assent of all ten provinces and the federal government in agreement. I frankly feel that this whole issue is academic. The US Declaration of Independence was a political document, not a legal document as such. A Quebec Declaration of Independence would be the same. If such ever existed, we would all be moving into new territory where I hope cool heads would prevail. The Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991. God knows if it was done "legally". It was done quite peacefully however.

Informed people in Quebec understand your idea but it's practically lost on them. I just chose France to make the idea more dramatic. In fact, the difference between Quebec French and France French is very much like the difference between Texan English and British English. (The same is true for Mexican Spanish and Spain Spanish, incidentally. Populism and familiarity vs. Henry Higgins.) This site is hosted in Lethbridge. There seem to be alot of Albertans here. Pick your own province if you prefer.Kimmy made the point that Albertans would be pragmatic and try to learn French. That's what most Quebecers want to do. At the same time, it's not so easy to do. I've often used the example of Holland or Sweden where about 75% of the population speaks English well - while writing and speaking Dutch/Swedish fluently. (The example has one big flaw for a federalist. Those countries are sovereign.) Kimmy also made the point, very valid, that an English Albertan Klein who speaks bad French would win a majority of votes outside of Alberta! (That's what Chretien did in effect.) On the French forum, one point made is that some Albertans would argue in favour of accomodation with the French provinces and other Albertans would argue with going it alone. That seems a reasonable conjecture.

I'm uncomfortable discussing Spain in the 16th century since while I know about the Duc de Parme and the defeat of the Armada, I'm hardly knowledgeable.As to Saudi Arabia, I've travelled there and met Saudis. I have to say that it is one of the most weird places I've ever been to. (All things considered, Iran is more normal.) I agree with you TalkNumb but for slightly different reasons. True, as soon as the oil runs out (or its use is replaced), the Saudis will have nothing. But in addition, the Saud family's hold on the country is tenuous and feudal. I'm also surprised to read rarely about how the Saud population is about 7 million and the non-Saud population is about the same. (These numbers are extremely rough, and indeed unknowable.) Non-Sauds have no citizenship and can be deported at any moment. Needless to say, they do all the work, from cleaning to managing. The US is selling its country to foreigners. The Sauds are accumulating the countries of others.I recall a British engineer's comment about Saudi Arabia. "Imagine you gave $500 billion to Henry VIII. What would he do with that kind of money? That's Saudi Arabia."

The simple fact that we are communicating intelligibly (usually) on this forum is evidence that we share some points in common. I believe that we have participants from all the western provinces (BC, Alta, Sask and Man) as well as Ontario. Is there anyone from posting from the Maritimes? We can discuss political and economic issues using cultural references we all know and understand. We would detect quickly if a poster was an American. IOW, we speak the same "language". There is a place called "Canada" that functions in English and has every right to exist. I sometimes fear that the Liberal Party has so skewed things that what I just wrote is no longer obvious. IOW, there are two Canadas and Quebec is not a province like the others. That too should be obvious.

I'd disagree with that.Quebecers used to (and still do) use the term le Canada anglais to designate the other nine provinces. English-Canadians criticized them for using the term since 1) many people in the other provinces were not English and 2) this somehow implied Canada was a duality/bi-national country when in fact Canada had people from many countries/nations and Quebec after all was just one province of nine.... So, someone came up with the term "rest of Canada" which is now used even in French as ROC, RdC or le reste du Canada. This term at least imples that Quebec is still part of Canada (which it is in fact). I'm well aware of the fact that ROC is not a single place. But is "English-speaking Canada" better? "Anglophone majority provinces"? Maudits Anglais?

Absolutely delightful, Ideal. I'll bet that site will get many hits very soon.

At the federal level, the PM has up to 6 months to fix the date. In effect, we have "fixed" dates for both general and by elections now. According to some, it appears the current fixed dates are too far into the future. In the case of general elections, by bringing the date forward, we would in effect reduce the potential length of mandates. I don't see how this would make Canada more democratic. Elections Canada web site

Are the Olympics over yet? It seems CBC radio has stopped talking about it but maybe it's because I'm not paying attention. Also, is it true that we win all our medals in competitions with judges? (If true, can I assume this means that we are good at UN style, truly boring and pointless negotiations?)

Precisely the point and particularly frustratring for the separatists. I had exactly the same thought!

I suppose Alberta would be a different place but then again, people would still be people and Alberta's a big place. The question is how do you think the ordinary Albertans you know would respond to such a situation?Why do you find this conjecture fanciful?

What do you think money is, and how is that inconsistent with the concept of power? Money is just paper. No one desires paper for itself. People desire money because it can be used to obtain real, tangible things. (Food, clothes, a house). To say "money is power" is to say that people do things to obtain other, real things. Well, that's quite obvious and the first guy who built his own cave didn't need money to understand it. (Note that all of this perfectly voluntary.) I think eureka's point is rather that large, expensive advertising campaigns can influence people's opinions through brain-washing. I think the common term now is wearing a tin-foil hat. If it were only so true. Peter Pocklington would have lost the past election to Belinda Stronach. And General Motors would still dominate the North American car market. And the Soviet politburo, with access to very sophisticated advertising techniques, would have everyone in its spell. Lastly, I bought Harper's and read Lapham's article. (I haven't done that in several years and it seems to me Harper's quality has gone down; must be the Internet.) Well, Lapham is back on the Old Left hobbyhorse of "conspiracy". "There must be some evil force making people think in such a foolish way." Lapham's article is very American. He does not discuss or mention the rise of the right elsewhere in the world.

I think Hugo is asking you to think outside of the box, eureka. That was a good film, but I preferred a documentary on the Army vs. McCarthy hearings. What you are saying, eureka, may be true in the US context but it is not true in the broader international context. I think this is a debateable point. And the debate is even relevant today.The Cold War represented a significant threat to the way we normally live. The past century was arguably a battleground between Bismarck and Lincoln; that is, it was a violent dispute between top-down authority and bottom-up freedom. As to McCarthy's minor role in this, I would say that a mindless witchhunt is counterproductive but an intelligent investigation is worthy. The Americans face a similar problem now. Incidentally, recent evidence backs Chambers' and Nixon's accusations against Alger Hiss.

Imagine that most people in Canada were French speaking and the English speakers were a minority concentrated in Alberta. So, Alberta is the same as you know it now (Klein is premier) but the rest of Canada is very different. People across the border in Saskatchewan in BC and elsewhere in Canada speak French, drive like maniacs and have big churches (pick any other stereotypical behaviour as well). The question is: would Alberta be a separate country or would it stay "connected" to these surrounding French provinces? ----- I think the real question here is whether English-speaking Canadians, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be as indecisive as Quebecers are about independance. The implication is that Quebecers lack the gumption to do something that les Anglais would have done ages ago, given similar circumstances. Incidentally, I liked Kimmy's comment: That's a good starting point but can you imagine how badly Klein would mangle French? He would be uncomfortable outside of Alberta.

From the article above: Ibbitson implies the legislation will go forward shortly after parliament resumes in early October. This is interesting and one to watch.

NYT article (This link may require (free) registration) I cannot believe that Roberts did this without WHite House knowledge. And I have seen this idea floated elsewhere. The CIA is a bureaucracy that has lived for about 50 years or so. I think that may turn out to be the useful lifespan of a bureaucracy. At a certain point, the advantages of institutional wisdom are outweighed by institutional lethargy. There are some places I've been where I truly thought that they should just fire everyone, or send them somewhere else, and start from scratch with a whole new crew. Trudeau sort of did that with CSIS and the RCMP in the 1970s.

Huh? The US has a current account deficit which means it has a capital account surplus. In effect, foreigners are delivering good and services to the United States because it offers a good place to invest them. In return, foreigners get a future claim on US resources. Incidentally, this situation is not new and occurred when the US government budget was in surplus. In fact, the capital account surplus is much larger than the current budget deficit.I think that's what Hugo said. I'm not sure your example of 17th century Spain is appropriate. Saudi Arabia typically runs a trade surplus, I believe. BTW, I agree with you about much military expenditures. Making cruise missiles and then exploding them is fun at first but is ultimately a waste of time and money. I learned that as a kid with fireworks and my allowance. Typical Canadian thinking. Attack a mathematical model? Are you joking? I merely wondered why you went into detail about what years it is taught in a university curricula. I thought the discussion was about government international trade policies. ---- Cases can be made for governments to intervene in trade between people. It is almost impossible to justify interventions which treat trade between people in one country differently from trade between people in two different countries.

The point is that Quebec has twice held a referendum on the question, and both times voters rejected "mandates to negotiate..." In effect, Quebec is doing nothing. The question is whether Albertans (for example) would be more decisive than Quebecers seem to be.

Imagine that Alberta is still Alberta BUT... the United States is a country of French people run by a President named Chirac or d'Estaing etc. In addition, imagine that the rest of Canada is also French speaking. Bouchard is the guy in BC, someone named Parizeau in Manitoba, Levesque in Ontario and so on. Canada has French people with their funny flags and weird habits and speaking style everywhere. Now, Alberta with its English speaking Klein is still the same straight shooting English Alberta you've always known. The question is, would Alberta be a separate country? Or would Alberta go along with all these local province French guys? Wrap your mind around this theoretical case (try to imagine a big France to the south with people who eat cheese and so on) and wonder what Klein or Lougheed would do. (If you're not Albertan, try Harris or McGuinty or Campbell or whoever.) [bTW, this is an ongoing thread on my French forum.]

Since when is "putting out to pasture" a synonym for "killing"? Or am I missing something? Is a citizenship court room an appropriate place to hand out religious tracts? Wouldn't it be better if new citizens were handed discount coupons for passport photo studios? Or even political party info packages. Why is it a better question?

I've noticed that gas stations here in Montreal have changed their signs to have three figures, plus a decimal. Prices have been as high as 99.9. Incidentally, gasoline prices are still too low. With crude oil near 50$/barrel, gasoline prices will have to go up.

If the federal government privatizes Petro-Canada, it will sell the shares. Why not simply mail us the shares instead and let us decide whether to hold them or sell them? Some people may prefer the cash rather than holding Petrocan shares.