The Federal Republic of Canada

[benny]

For starters we no longer have the right to own property

For starters, property is theft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

[g_bambino]

Independence is not going to happen for Canada. Independance from the UK and Britain could happen...

Still wearing your powdered wig and buckled shoes, I see.

[bush_cheney2004]

For starters, property is theft:

"Property is theft" = Oxymoron

[benny]

"Property is theft" = Oxymoron

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?" (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)

Edited July 22, 2009 by benny

[bush_cheney2004]

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?" (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)

He doesn't get it....but Karl Marx did.

[benny]

He doesn't get it....but Karl Marx did.

He did get it and Marx did not because what one can own and violate must have physical properties.

[nicky10013]

Really?

What was the 1982 constitution? That document was created by the Liberal Party, Signed off by the Supreme Court of Canada and Ratified by the Queen. This all happened without a say from the people! Show me in this 1982 constitution where the Queen has reliquished herself from Canada?

She is still the Sovereign of Canada and if she could construct the 1982 constitution without your say she can certainly do it again. Not only has the Queen throughout Canada's history altered Canada's operating Framework without the Canadian people's say the the 1982 Constitution, Statue of Westminister, etc, exist in the UK legal Framework. There is nothing stopping the Queen and the UK parliament from repealing all legislation pertaining to Canada at any time and at any point.

If the Queen and the UK were to make that move Canada's political and bureacratic machine could be forced to a grinding halt if the Queen and her Governor Generals refuses ascent to any legislation tabled by the Government. It is also within the Governor Generals power to fire the Prime Minister and Dismiss the Party in Government.

No power????

All you people have is your empty words. Any move by Canada to free itself from the Queen would require Canada to be recogized. Recognized by Who?. Canada may have been a respected Country once upon a time I doubt that is the case today.

Independence is not going to happen for Canada. Independance from the UK and Britain could happen but it would require mobilized non violent support by a majority of Old and New Canadians. Good Luck with that, not going to happen. What will happen is the Queen or her heirs will eventually one day alter Canada unilaterally to reflect the times of day, Like it or not.

Face the facts Canada is no longer a progressive prosperous Country but a stagnate, repressive, stifling, corrupt society. Canada's model of prosperity is based on exploitation and self serving greed. Canada is this because it has no values, no principles, no virtues, no honour, no integrity.

Canada is this, because of the Conservative pary of Canada.

If the Liberals had a majority and a mandate, doesn't that mean they therefore have the voice of the people?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If the Liberals had a majority and a mandate, doesn't that mean they therefore have the voice of the people?

By our current definitions, yes. I for one don't like the system as it stands but there it is anyway.

[benny]

By our current definitions, yes. I for one don't like the system as it stands but there it is anyway.

The defining element of a democracy is the will of the people to act together.

[jbg]

I saw a couple responses denoting that people want more symbols to believe in, and that republicanism is reflective of democracy. While theoretically true, voter turnout these days everywhere, not just in Canada, point to the fact that symbols no longer enthrall the populations of democracies like they once did.

Indeed, people seem to fall in love with the idea of a republic over the symbology alone, as if creating in Canada that catch-all phrase republic would somehow turn around the democratic malaise that, is frankly a lot worse in places that do indeed declare them to be said republics.

The fact is, when we talk about transforming our political system, it won't be in name only. We have to recognize that the very essence of the political legislative process will be changed.

In theory, a symbolic President, such as Israel, Germany and certain other republics have would not require a change of "the very essence of the political legislative process." The problem is that the exercise of the reserve powers would have less apparent neutrality than the times it was exercised, such as the Whitlam-Kerr and King-Byng affairs. Thus, the symbol of a neutral above the fray is important.

People fantasize about the system of checks and balances but in reality in the United States those checks and balances do a lot more to harm the process than to help it. People hate government because it gets nothing done and fosters corruption and massive redundancy in the bureaucracy. The mere fact that there are so many points in the legislative process to kill legislation to "protect us from tyranny" allows private interests to easily bribe congressmen who aren't bound by parliamentary discipline and said reps (or other bureaucrats from powerful deparments *ahem* pentagon *ahem*) can easily add spending into legislation to get it passed (porkbarrel politics). In the end, this does happen in Canada but in no shape or form is anywhere close to the leve it occurs in the United States.

The republican system cripples the legislative process in that legislation moves at a snails pace in comparison to that of the HoC in Canada. In the end, this has to somewhat influence electoral politics. In the technological age people and information move at the speed of light and in the end Americans can't relate to their 18th century political system because it can't keep up with society. Look at the health care debate. Though a clear majority of Americans want changes to health care, the entrenched interests in Congress with funding from the AMA and the Health Insurance lobby will more than likely kill any attempt at health reform. In fact, the fastest thing that the congress has done in the past ten years was to approve a motion to sing the anthem on the steps of the capitol after 9/11. After that, everything is a dog fight.

In Canada, if there's a majority, which Canadians are now again craving, the government can get down to business and get things done. In the end, Canadian democracy is entrenched to the point that if a majority government is doing thing that the population resents, they can be kicked out (Mulroney) and we don't need checks and balances to keep us from giving ourselves a dictator.

I live in and experience the U.S. every day. In practice, checks and balances works well, though it came about by accident and not by design.

Checks and balances have nothing to do with the bureaucracy. What creates the bureaucracy is the willingness of elected politicians in both the Westminister and U.S. systems to "pass the buck" and establish agencies with "expertise" to deal with problems rather than mucking with the details. What checks and balances do accomplish is to prevent a majority government from becoming a runaway train. Take health insurance in the U.S. Few people are willing to accept massive tax hikes to insure a few people who are uninsured. Maybe that's bad, maybe that's good. But it will be thoroughly debated. No Mulroney or Trudeau will be able to "whip" Congress to force a "yes" vote.

The problem is that Mulroney was able to keep his mandate going for a year beyond the customary four years after the 1988 "free trade" election when it became clear that the PCPC was going to get clobbered. There really is no way, except in extreme circumstances to break a majority government prematurely.

For those people who use regional differences and decentralization as a means to gain a republic, honestly, the west has merely taken a huge sip of the Alliance/Reform/Conservative kool-aid. Regional differences (with the exception of Quebec) never factored in to elections to the point that they have until Stockwell Day, panicky as most Conservative leaders are, started airing ads that the east hated the west even though Chretien's ads were a pan-canadian message that didn't change from riding to riding (which Conservative ads did. Clearly the we love Ontario ads during that period were never played in Calgary. Thank god we got the real message when Mr. Baird told Toronto to Fuck Off). Since then, the only way the Conservatives have been able to get in is to play on that regional divide rather than strengthening the unity of the nation. In my opinion, thats as bad as seperatism.

What about the N.E.P.? Didn't that predate Stockwell Day by almost 20 years? Stockwell Day did not start the Reform Party.

[benny]

In theory, a symbolic President, such as Israel, Germany and certain other republics have would not require a change of "the very essence of the political legislative process." The problem is that the exercise of the reserve powers would have less apparent neutrality than the times it was exercised, such as the Whitlam-Kerr and King-Byng affairs. Thus, the symbol of a neutral above the fray is important.

I live in and experience the U.S. every day. In practice, checks and balances works well, though it came about by accident and not by design.

Checks and balances have nothing to do with the bureaucracy. What creates the bureaucracy is the willingness of elected politicians in both the Westminister and U.S. systems to "pass the buck" and establish agencies with "expertise" to deal with problems rather than mucking with the details. What checks and balances do accomplish is to prevent a majority government from becoming a runaway train. Take health insurance in the U.S. Few people are willing to accept massive tax hikes to insure a few people who are uninsured. Maybe that's bad, maybe that's good. But it will be thoroughly debated. No Mulroney or Trudeau will be able to "whip" Congress to force a "yes" vote.

The problem is that Mulroney was able to keep his mandate going for a year beyond the customary four years after the 1988 "free trade" election when it became clear that the PCPC was going to get clobbered. There really is no way, except in extreme circumstances to break a majority government prematurely.

What about the N.E.P.? Didn't that predate Stockwell Day by almost 20 years? Stockwell Day did not start the Reform Party.

Cross-posting (see post #596).

[jbg]

Cross-posting (see post #596).

I moved the post because your moronic response cut off intelligent discussion of it.

[benny]

I moved the post because your moronic response cut off intelligent discussion of it.

Here another response you will wrongly find moronic: the readability of topics requires that you stop doing that.

[Charles Anthony]

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is childish.

If you do not like somebody else's contribution to the discussion thread, ignore it.

If you think somebody else's contribution is a violation of the forum rules, report it and ignore it.

Stop the nitter-nattering and do not engage the banter.

Ch. A.

[benny]

In theory, a symbolic President, such as Israel, Germany and certain other republics have would not require a change of "the very essence of the political legislative process."

"Symbolic president" and "symbolic monarch" are both oxymoron because a real person cannot be only symbolic. A real person will always capture our imagination in a deeper way than any surface deep symbol.

[ToadBrother]

"Symbolic president" and "symbolic monarch" are both oxymoron because a real person cannot be only symbolic. A real person will always capture our imagination in a deeper way than any surface deep symbol.

Wouldn't it be something if you actually used words in the context in which they were meant. The meaning of the word "symbolic" in this case is that they're actual effective powers are extremely limited, if not outright non-existent. For instance, the Swedish monarchy has been stripped of pretty much all powers. The role of the Swedish monarch is completely ceremonial.

[ToadBrother]

Checks and balances have nothing to do with the bureaucracy. What creates the bureaucracy is the willingness of elected politicians in both the Westminister and U.S. systems to "pass the buck" and establish agencies with "expertise" to deal with problems rather than mucking with the details. What checks and balances do accomplish is to prevent a majority government from becoming a runaway train. Take health insurance in the U.S. Few people are willing to accept massive tax hikes to insure a few people who are uninsured. Maybe that's bad, maybe that's good. But it will be thoroughly debated. No Mulroney or Trudeau will be able to "whip" Congress to force a "yes" vote.

What creates bureaucracies are large and complex states that require a high level of expertise. Whether you're dealing with an absolutist monarch like Augustus or King Henry VIII, or a legislative assembly (democratically constituted or otherwise), when a state reaches a certain size, it cannot be managed by one person, or often even a few hundred.

If you don't want bureaucracies, I recommend you go live in a hunter-gatherer tribe. They're small enough not to require bureaucracies. But the minute we started building large scale planned urbanized societies, bureaucracies were inevitable.

[benny]

Wouldn't it be something if you actually used words in the context in which they were meant. The meaning of the word "symbolic" in this case is that they're actual effective powers are extremely limited, if not outright non-existent. For instance, the Swedish monarchy has been stripped of pretty much all powers. The role of the Swedish monarch is completely ceremonial.

I think you underestimate how subtly huge political capital can be gathered and lay dormant until an opportunity comes.

[ToadBrother]

I think you underestimate how subtly huge political capital can be gathered and lay dormant until an opportunity comes.

Yes, you're quite right. That Carl Gustaf has sooooo much political capital.

[benny]

Yes, you're quite right. That Carl Gustaf has sooooo much political capital.

What do you know about political capital!?

[nicky10013]

In theory, a symbolic President, such as Israel, Germany and certain other republics have would not require a change of "the very essence of the political legislative process." The problem is that the exercise of the reserve powers would have less apparent neutrality than the times it was exercised, such as the Whitlam-Kerr and King-Byng affairs. Thus, the symbol of a neutral above the fray is important.

I live in and experience the U.S. every day. In practice, checks and balances works well, though it came about by accident and not by design.

Checks and balances have nothing to do with the bureaucracy. What creates the bureaucracy is the willingness of elected politicians in both the Westminister and U.S. systems to "pass the buck" and establish agencies with "expertise" to deal with problems rather than mucking with the details. What checks and balances do accomplish is to prevent a majority government from becoming a runaway train. Take health insurance in the U.S. Few people are willing to accept massive tax hikes to insure a few people who are uninsured. Maybe that's bad, maybe that's good. But it will be thoroughly debated. No Mulroney or Trudeau will be able to "whip" Congress to force a "yes" vote.

The problem is that Mulroney was able to keep his mandate going for a year beyond the customary four years after the 1988 "free trade" election when it became clear that the PCPC was going to get clobbered. There really is no way, except in extreme circumstances to break a majority government prematurely.

What about the N.E.P.? Didn't that predate Stockwell Day by almost 20 years? Stockwell Day did not start the Reform Party.

No, the reform was started by a group of right wing nutjobs unhappy about the way Mulroney was destroying the Conservatives.

Also, I fail to see your point about Mulroney. He went from the largest majority in history to 2 seats in the HoC. He lost his mandate. Democracy in action.

[ToadBrother]

No, the reform was started by a group of right wing nutjobs unhappy about the way Mulroney was destroying the Conservatives.

There were certainly right wing nutjobs involved, but I wouldn't call Preston Manning a nutjob. I don't agree with everything he says, but I did in fact vote for Reform precisely because I thought, at the end of the day, that this was a man of honor, integrity and, despite my uncomfortableness with some of his religiosity, was a believer in the full extent of liberty, and not just in making sure his coreligionists had the upper hand.

It's when they turned into the Alliance, elected that social conservative/extremist buffoon Stockwell Day, and then turned to the more Machiavellian but no less hard right social conservative Harper that I said "F--- you, I am out of here". I couldn't bring myself to vote Liberal after the horrors of the Sponsorship Scandal, so was in the gutwrenching position of having to vote NDP. Until Harper's gone and a real moderate, and not just a moderate due to expediency, is running the Tories, I'll probably move slightly rightward and go with the Liberals.

Also, I fail to see your point about Mulroney. He went from the largest majority in history to 2 seats in the HoC. He lost his mandate. Democracy in action.

Well, actually, Mulroney didn't lose anything. He left office and the Conservatives put John Tur.... err... I mean Kim Campbell in front of the bullet.

[nicky10013]

There were certainly right wing nutjobs involved, but I wouldn't call Preston Manning a nutjob. I don't agree with everything he says, but I did in fact vote for Reform precisely because I thought, at the end of the day, that this was a man of honor, integrity and, despite my uncomfortableness with some of his religiosity, was a believer in the full extent of liberty, and not just in making sure his coreligionists had the upper hand.

It's when they turned into the Alliance, elected that social conservative/extremist buffoon Stockwell Day, and then turned to the more Machiavellian but no less hard right social conservative Harper that I said "F--- you, I am out of here". I couldn't bring myself to vote Liberal after the horrors of the Sponsorship Scandal, so was in the gutwrenching position of having to vote NDP. Until Harper's gone and a real moderate, and not just a moderate due to expediency, is running the Tories, I'll probably move slightly rightward and go with the Liberals.

Well, actually, Mulroney didn't lose anything. He left office and the Conservatives put John Tur.... err... I mean Kim Campbell in front of the bullet.

In the end, his position supporting "liberty" would've wreaked havoc on the Canadian political system and it doesn't take a political scientist to realise it. The right of political recall? Really???? There's a difference between best theory and best practice and republicanism surely isn't best practice. Despite how nice he is, he still goes in the nut job camp for me, at least.

On Mulroney, the point is true, however, the fact remains that his government was heavily punished on its' record which is what democracy is all about.

To turn the republican = democracy argument on its head, I had a professor give an interesting overview of the American system. His argument was that the system itself is anti-democratic at its core. The only thing democratic about the system was the fact that people are voted in to office. The founding fathers were so afraid of tyranny, that they wouldn't allow people to vote in majority governments like we do here. In essence, they didn't want their leaders to do much for fear that they'd steal power.Canada weathered the storm, we never reverted to authoritarianism. Why switch to a system that has outlived its use?

[Smallc]

I'm not sure where we got this idea that we needed a 4 year election anyway. We are mandated to have one every 5 years, and there is no mention of 4 years in the Constitution.

[benny]

I'm not sure where we got this idea that we needed a 4 year election anyway. We are mandated to have one every 5 years, and there is no mention of 4 years in the Constitution.

When it comes to comparing a democracy with a monarchy, the question surrounding the frequency of leadership change has to be preceded by an understanding of the reasons motivating the emptying of the leadership position.