Benz Posted September 4, 2016 Report Share Posted September 4, 2016 A trend is a trend, it is not a justification of itself. There are advantages of centralising powers into one entity but, there are also significant advantages for decentralisation as well. It depends on the capacity of the body in question to have a good lecture of the needs of the people it has to serve. It would be non sense to raise the management of a city's roads to the federal government. When the concern is almost the same for a large number of people, it is a good idea to centralise the power of it to one entity. When the concerns have substential differences according to the régions, it's a good idea to decentralise it. I would definitly not rely on a trend to evaluate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted September 4, 2016 Report Share Posted September 4, 2016 I'd separate BC from Canada and join Alaska in a heartbeat given the opportunity. Hilarious! Bitch about neocons and rednecks all day, then clamour to join AK. Buddy, you have never been there if you think it would a kinder, gentler place. I have been there numerous times. It ain't what you think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted September 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2016 A friend of mine lived in AK. He rather liked it, it's just damn cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted September 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2016 Luttwak's book was written in 1960. The last major change happened in 1982. He was wrong because there was a clear tendancy to centralization but, it can be explained by his political positions. I do not know about him but, for some people, Canada will never be enough centralized. I think Luttwak was talking about centralization as one of the requirements for the ability to stage a coup d'etat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted September 7, 2016 Report Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) Purportedly provincial governments have the say in marriage, but as has been seen the Feds have tak n over. Edited September 7, 2016 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vega Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 I wish we could become a unitary country myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 21, 2016 Report Share Posted September 21, 2016 Purportedly provincial governments have the say in marriage, but as has been seen the Feds have tak n over. Supreme Court ruling applies to the entire nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 21, 2016 Report Share Posted September 21, 2016 Supreme Court ruling applies to the entire nation. Only so far as the federal and provincial governments allow it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted September 29, 2016 Report Share Posted September 29, 2016 Only so far as the federal and provincial governments allow it to. I don't believe the feds have ever invoked notwithstanding, but several of the provinces have (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Yukon). Note there are limits on its use. First the legislation must be within the jurisdiction of that government (as Alberta found out when they tried to block same sex marriages), and there is a five year limit. Although technically the clause can be reinvoked on the same matter multiple times, history has shown that the province will change their legislation as Quebec did with the language laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H10 Posted November 28, 2016 Report Share Posted November 28, 2016 Yeah, the trend is towards federalism in Canada. Canada's underlying dynamics are the vastly different from the states. One question I wonder, is how is it people in economic equal states like the dakotas, montana, idaho etc afford healthcare compared to saskatchewan, manitoba and Alberta which basically pushed the who universal healthcare whereas their southern neighbours were really against. The whole state's right thing is about some southern states wanting to hang onto slavery and other states wanting to hang on to oppressing people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.