Are you open to seperation?

[Oleg Bach]

Only if you are willing to die for the Union....and methinks most Canadians would rather separate instead of going through that. Canada is not a republic, and has much weaker bond energy. It was not born by violently breaking away from the reigning global superpower, and was formed from the left over business in North America.

The reasons that America broke away from the super power of the day was much like a cell duplicating itself. Or a junior mafia guy wanting his own pilage and plunder operation...If you really believe YOUR founding fathers were oppressed saints you are wrong. They were British and they did not want to pay tribute to the controlling mobsters back home...having mentioned that - I really don't believe that greatness and power need to swim though blood to come into existance.

You might be right about the original "bond energy" that America has in comparrison to us. You mentioned that loyalty and honor develope best under the strain of battle...but even that energy after a couple of hundred years depletes...You may have had it but you are running low my friend....Just like our buisness leaders that profit by cutting deals with China - you have yours who sold out the tribe also....looks like we are equals at present.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I really don't believe that greatness and power need to swim though blood to come into existance.

That may be true, but in the case of the United States, that was how it happened. Any comparisons to that specific example need to keep this in mind. Otherwise Canada could be like....ummm....Argentina!

You might be right about the original "bond energy" that America has in comparrison to us. You mentioned that loyalty and honor develope best under the strain of battle...but even that energy after a couple of hundred years depletes...You may have had it but you are running low my friend....Just like our buisness leaders that profit by cutting deals with China - you have yours who sold out the tribe also....looks like we are equals at present.

I don't think so....America was born in war and came to dominate in/through still many more wars. It will go out the same way, as is fitting given its history.

[ReeferMadness]

Separatism in Canada is a tribute to parochialism and tribalism. We don't have real problems so we make them up. Separatists ignore the problems and costs of breaking up the country while they inflate the benefits and romanticize over the what will be. You could travel across this country and find people in every region who would swear that region would be better on on its own. How is that even possible?

Alberta may be better off on its own in the short term - until the conventional crude starts to run low. What then? Alberta was created a hundred years ago by someone arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. Is that the basis for nationhood?

And as for Quebecers, they blame their problems on TROC. They swallow this crap about 2 founding nations. And when the separatists tell them they're hard done by, they eat it up. What bullshit.

One of the reasons that separatists flourish in this country is our stupid voting system. It emphasizes the regional differences and makes them look much worse than they are. If we had proportional representation on a regional basis, we would hear a more reasonable balance of voices.

[Shwa]

Yet the "Crown" and provinces remain in material breach of many such treaty provisions all the same. The only real relief to be found by "aboriginals" is by way of the courts, another institution fundamentally on side with the "Crown".

All true. However, even though the there are outstanding material breaches of treaties that originated in the past, those illegalities do not give the governments or First Nations the right to make new breaches. The point of the references to Aboriginal rights in the Constitution are a recognition of those problems and an attempt to correct them. I believe the "Crown" is on board with this perspective as evidenced by many rulings over these issues over the past few decades.

The very concept of a voluntary "treaty" as an instrument of settlement with obligation(s) includes the possibility of withdrawal or abrogation by one or more parties.

Again, true. Which is one of the instruments used when the James Bay Cree used to squeeze the QC government over the James Bay hydro-electric projects.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement has been further modified by some 20 additional accords affecting the implementation and details of the original agreement, as well as expanding their provisions. Furthermore, the Constitution Act, 1982 entrenched in the Constitution of Canada all the rights granted in native treaties and land claims agreements, giving the rights outlined in the original agreement the status of constitutional rights.

[Oleg Bach]

That may be true, but in the case of the United States, that was how it happened. Any comparisons to that specific example need to keep this in mind. Otherwise Canada could be like....ummm....Argentina!

I don't think so....America was born in war and came to dominate in/through still many more wars. It will go out the same way, as is fitting given its history.

Looks like the status quo is barbarism and has always been that - so I am disappointed in the fact that humanity talks about evolution but does not take part in it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Looks like the status quo is barbarism and has always been that - so I am disappointed in the fact that humanity talks about evolution but does not take part in it.

Human evolution and the evolution of human society are two different things. Whether or not we lose our wisdom teeth or small toes will not impact our politics in any functional way !

Now having said that, I must agree that our politics will in fact evolve. As will our society. Time teaches us that invention follows necessity. If it is needed, someone finds a way to get it done. We adapt, we overcome, that is our nature and the reason for our rise as the dominant life form on the planet.

In today's terms, in our little corner of the world, there is no cause for change. At least that is true with all those who choose to participate in the debate. Yet also true is that there is a low rate of participation, so the models used in judgment develop an inaccurate statistical conclusion. The simple truth is that public participation in the political process allows for the top five percent of the population to actually dominate the lower ninety five percent. The system as designed perpetuates this position. It is the result of the development of the representative system of democracy, a system not designed to empower the individual, but instead to empower a much large group of individuals. Should citizens truly desire to improve the human condition through the application of politics then we would seek to empower the individual and restrict the power and authority of government.

[Pliny]

Should citizens truly desire to improve the human condition through the application of politics then we would seek to empower the individual and restrict the power and authority of government.

I would say this is correct. How would that be achieved? Having government protect the wealth of the individual, thus making it truly the servant of the individual, instead of having the right to redistribute it for what politicians deem to be in the interests of the collective good - private property be damned?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would say this is correct. How would that be achieved? Having government protect the wealth of the individual, thus making it truly the servant of the individual, instead of having the right to redistribute it for what politicians deem to be in the interests of the collective good - private property be damned?

Perhaps a good start, given that the right to own property was removed from our constitution. In truth, there would need to be many steps taken over the course of time to achieve these things. On the other hand, considering recent political and economic events, the entire monetary system could well provide a focus point from which public sentiment may be leveraged into political action. Change could well come sooner than later.

[Shwa]

I would say this is correct. How would that be achieved? Having government protect the wealth of the individual, thus making it truly the servant of the individual, instead of having the right to redistribute it for what politicians deem to be in the interests of the collective good - private property be damned?

Of course the "individual" you are referring to is an "individual" as incorporated by the state, yes? Which would include any "collective" that has been incorporated like General Motors, any City or even unions? Or, as you hand over private property to "the indivdual" are you advocating for a disembodiment of all corporations at the same time?

The problem with your view is that any laws deemed to protect "the individual" - even as an unicorporate single citizen - would still be for the "collective good" since that protection would be extended to all individuals at once, as a group.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Of course the "individual" you are referring to is an "individual" as incorporated by the state, yes? Which would include any "collective" that has been incorporated like General Motors, any City or even unions? Or, as you hand over private property to "the indivdual" are you advocating for a disembodiment of all corporations at the same time?

The problem with your view is that any laws deemed to protect "the individual" - even as an unicorporate single citizen - would still be for the "collective good" since that protection would be extended to all individuals at once, as a group.

You misunderstand me. I believe the root cause of much within society to be to be found within the context of the definition of citizenship. The reality is that there are two forms of citizenship within this nation. There are corporate and natural citizens, and they are defined by law. By law corporate citizens are "entitled" to be treated in like manner to natural citizens. The true age of entitlement came into existence with the creation of corporations and the treatment of such corporations under the law. Originally designed to "limit liability", corporations were the creation of group investment with preferential tax treatment and judicial protection from liability. Government backed a few rich citizens to develop industries and create profit. Modern banking began at nearly the same time. We have now reached a point at which the corporate citizen has more rights and benefits than the natural citizen. We have redrawn old lines around a cast system that serves to divide citizens. The entire exercise has been detrimental to the improvement of the human condition, yet it did yield immense benefit to those at the top of the food chain within society.

Yes the individual is of paramount consideration, and that individual is defined as the natural citizen. The natural citizen has a voice, the corporate citizen does not. In very real terms, the natural citizen can shout down the efforts of the corporate citizen. Yet to this day within our democratic environment we choose to preserve and protect the corporate citizen at the expense of the natural citizen.

[Shwa]

...The entire exercise has been detrimental to the improvement of the human condition, yet it did yield immense benefit to those at the top of the food chain within society.

I don't doubt that the top of the food chain gets the most benefit, but surely you are not saying that incorporation has not benefitted society or civilization overall. One could argue - quite successfully - that the incorporation of specialization is one of the main drivers of Western civilzation and that any notion of an incorporate individual - those without any corporate ties - is a mere romanticism.

Yes the individual is of paramount consideration, and that individual is defined as the natural citizen. The natural citizen has a voice, the corporate citizen does not. In very real terms, the natural citizen can shout down the efforts of the corporate citizen. Yet to this day within our democratic environment we choose to preserve and protect the corporate citizen at the expense of the natural citizen.

But the natural citizen can only - in our present conception of it, at least - have rights and laws applied as a group and, in the eyes of the law, it is only by this association with others, as a 'body' of citizenry itself, that the natural citizen can derive their rights and laws. In other words, the natural citizen is only as powerful as the body to which it belongs. This might not be incorporation in our modern legal sense, but it is an embodiment of the concept nonetheless.

[Smallc]

Perhaps a good start, given that the right to own property was removed from our constitution.

Ummm, no it wasn't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ummm, no it wasn't.

Try reading it first.

[Smallc]

Try reading it first.

Again, no it wasn't.

[bloodyminded]

One could argue - quite successfully - that the incorporation of specialization is one of the main drivers of Western civilzation and that any notion of an incorporate individual - those without any corporate ties - is a mere romanticism.

On a related note (arguably ):

It seems that the film The Matrix was based on the writings of Baudrillard (and not Plato's cave allegory, as many have posited); after the success of the first film, the filmmakers apparently contacted Baudrillard and asked if he'd like to consult on the sequels. Baudrillard watched the movie, and declined the offer, concluding: "The Matrix is exactly the movie that the Matrix itself would produce."

[Shwa]

On a related note (arguably ):

It seems that the film The Matrix was based on the writings of Baudrillard (and not Plato's cave allegory, as many have posited); after the success of the first film, the filmmakers apparently contacted Baudrillard and asked if he'd like to consult on the sequels. Baudrillard watched the movie, and declined the offer, concluding: "The Matrix is exactly the movie that the Matrix itself would produce."

LOL

Well, after all, those cigarette ads back in the day made everything out to be pretty cool if you smoked. I mean, how could one lose?

[cybercoma]

Man. I love Baudrillard.