What is required to create a new province/territory?

[The New Movement]

46 minutes ago, Benz said:

If you do not want to be subject to any federal law, only independence is your solution. But to play the game and brainstorm about the possibility, let's try this.

What you need, is to create a new level. There is the Territory level, mostly governed by the federal with a very small local administration. There is the Province level, having alot of autonomy but, still having alot of power duplications and few domains that are managed by the federal. What you want is to create a new level, the State level. More autonomy than a province, but it has to depend on its own with minimal help from the federal. You would still have to respect the canadian constitution, but you would have a say on it. Which is not necessarly the case of all provinces.

There is only one catch. Canada has to agree with you to create such level. I cannot see how you could manage to convince the federal of such thing. Not realistic. That can be discussed only on a theoriy basis.

That's a very interesting idea. In the worst case scenario, if the existing federal government can't be convinced of creating a State level, we could create a political party, win the federal election, and implement this ourselves. That would be a huge pain, for sure, though.

[The New Movement]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There really is no incentive for them to do this, though.  And if you only have hundreds of citizens, or fewer, then they probably won't even return your calls.  If you do get a response from government, it would manifest itself in an appearance on their 'watch lists' for security reasons.

There are a few incentives I'm aware of:

- these communities will be happier with their life, and because they now have an ideal place to live, many more people will want to reproduce. Low birth rate is a major issue in Western countries today, and governments have already began media campaigns to convince the population to have sex and have children.

- this will lower the friction between various worldviews that exist. We currently don't have a good model of how multiple, opposing worldviews can share the same country, for reasons mentioned in my first post.

- happier communities are more productive communities, and may have a strongly positive impact on the economy, local and global.

- this model will scale into the future (is future proof), which will give people stability and assurance that their way of life isn't potentially in jeopardy every time a new political party seizes power of the country, as it is today.

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, The New Movement said:

Thanks, that would be great if their weather wasn't so biting cold :-) 

It is the same biting cold that the rest of us live with.   Where exactly are you and where do you see your commune being created?

[The New Movement]

16 minutes ago, cannuck said:

It is the same biting cold that the rest of us live with.   Where exactly are you and where do you see your commune being created?

I'm in southern Ontario. I don't have a strong preference yet. Being close to a body of water would be great, and close to the U.S. border to make trade easier.

[cannuck]

you should look at Prince Edward County.

[The New Movement]

20 minutes ago, cannuck said:

you should look at Prince Edward County.

Thanks, that looks like a fantastic little nook :-) Water on all fronts, great weather, somewhat close to Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal (via the river), and a stone's throw from the U.S.

Edited October 30, 2017 by The New Movement

[cannuck]

there is an abandoned army base (CFB Picton) and a former BCATP airport there, or at least there was at one time (yes still there).   I would imagine that there is some kind of existing land claim from some treaty that would give the whole thing to an Indian band of some flavour.  Worth looking at - would set the whole mess on its ear if you could find that and work that angle.

[Benz]

4 hours ago, The New Movement said:

That's a very interesting idea. In the worst case scenario, if the existing federal government can't be convinced of creating a State level, we could create a political party, win the federal election, and implement this ourselves. That would be a huge pain, for sure, though.

You can try to team up with the Bloc Québécois and convaince them to apply their logic at large for all canadians.

Québec always considered itself as a state, not a province. Back in 1867, Québec wanted a confederation, not a federation. With strong states and a small central government. The others wanted a strong central government with smaller provinces. Your ideal federation that you are looking for is much closer to the one Québec wants. However, it's for total different reasons.

Despite the difference in the ultimate goal, the principle of the existence of a state level instead of province or territory is the same. It could be a starter for brainstorming your vision of how the federal should be.

[The New Movement]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

You can try to team up with the Bloc Québécois and convaince them to apply their logic at large for all canadians.

Québec always considered itself as a state, not a province. Back in 1867, Québec wanted a confederation, not a federation. With strong states and a small central government. The others wanted a strong central government with smaller provinces. Your ideal federation that you are looking for is much closer to the one Québec wants. However, it's for total different reasons.

Despite the difference in the ultimate goal, the principle of the existence of a state level instead of province or territory is the same. It could be a starter for brainstorming your vision of how the federal should be.

Thanks, yes, that's a great strategy. Once this gets underway, Quebec would be highly motivated to push it through, which definitely helps.

This could work for the 50.58% that voted to leave Canada in 1995. That portion of the population could carve out a section of Quebec and govern themselves.

I think you're right - this might actually be the best ticket forward to getting wide spread support.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, The New Movement said:

- these communities will be happier with their life, and because they now have an ideal place to live, many more people will want to reproduce. Low birth rate is a major issue in Western countries today, and governments have already began media campaigns to convince the population to have sex and have children.

Even if you are a true believer in the path before you, the idea that people will take to this idea easily is politically naive.

10 hours ago, The New Movement said:

- this will lower the friction between various worldviews that exist. We currently don't have a good model of how multiple, opposing worldviews can share the same country, for reasons mentioned in my first post.

Isn't that model called Democracy, love it or leave it etc. ?

 

10 hours ago, The New Movement said:

- happier communities are more productive communities, and may have a strongly positive impact on the economy, local and global.

Why don't people vote for these systems today then ?  

 

10 hours ago, The New Movement said:

- this model will scale into the future (is future proof), which will give people stability and assurance that their way of life isn't potentially in jeopardy every time a new political party seizes power of the country, as it is today.

What are you going to do with people who refuse to work ?  Who are unemployed ?  Who need welfare or long term disability ?  Where do you plan to put them - conceptually and physically ? 

[The New Movement]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even if you are a true believer in the path before you, the idea that people will take to this idea easily is politically naive.

I don't know if anything comes easily in this world, but I do believe they can be convinced.

 

Quote

Isn't that model called Democracy, love it or leave it etc. ?

No. As mentioned in my first post:

In regards to "love it or leave it" - there isn't any land (besides Antarctica) that isn't claimed by some country. We can no longer simply tell a new generation of humans, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" - that excuse is being used by every nation at the same time.

Moreover, if every country in the world became a democracy over night, that would mean any group that doesn't want to live in a democracy would be shut out on a global level. That's not fair, and will lead to strife.

The "love it or leave it" approach is a problem, whether a country is practicing democracy, communism, or anything else. There needs to be room made for alternative ways of life.

In regards to the issue with democracy - we can't simply tell a new generation to vote - we can't expect people to live out their dreams when majority rule bullies minorities into living the way the majority wants. In fact, majority rule forces us to create social groups, discriminate against people outside our group, and empowers the destructive "us vs. them" thinking. It also tends to create political party cycles - every X years, a country will cycle from left, to center, to right, and all the way back. This is a waste of time and energy.

 

Quote

What are you going to do with people who refuse to work ?  Who are unemployed ?

Nothing. As long as these communities can provide food and shelter for themselves, that's all they need as a minimum. The rest is up to them to provide for themselves.

Regarding federal taxes to help pay for shared expenses like the military, if a particular community doesn't want to participate in the national economy, I suppose an arrangement could be made, perhaps on a case-by-case basis. For example, mandatory conscription for those over the age of 18.

 

Quote

Who need welfare or long term disability ?  Where do you plan to put them - conceptually and physically ? 

Healthcare, welfare, and any other form of social assistance will be provided by each community as they see fit. They will decide where to put them. They can, and hopefully will, build their own hospitals.

The main idea is that we shouldn't be telling them how to live. When a group creates plans to setup a new community, they should discuss these things and convince those interested how their needs will be met.

Edited October 30, 2017 by The New Movement

[bush_cheney2004]

58 minutes ago, The New Movement said:

...Healthcare, welfare, and any other form of social assistance will be provided by each community as they see fit. They will decide where to put them. They can, and hopefully will, build their own hospitals.

The main idea is that we shouldn't be telling them how to live. When a group creates plans to setup a new community, they should discuss these things and convince those interested how their needs will be met.

 

Agreed....the underpinnings of human societies have existed for thousands of years without regard for such very recent social constructs and dependencies (entitlements) stemming from formally organized "government" and requisite revenue streams (taxes).   

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[The New Movement]

54 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed....the underpinnings of human societies have existed for thousands of years without regard for such very recent social constructs and dependencies (entitlements) stemming from formally organized "government" and requisite revenue streams (taxes).   

 

I agree with your agreement! :-P We do have a tendency to offload more and more responsibility on the government. I don't necessarily mind that sometimes - I do love my "free" healthcare - but it's not for everyone and I understand why, and want to support them too.

[taxme]

On 10/29/2017 at 9:48 AM, The New Movement said:

I've been thinking about creating a province or territory that governs itself and would not be subject to federal law. It would pay some federal taxes for shared things like the military.

The purpose would be to accommodate people with alternative world views. For example, within this new province, we could have separate towns for different types of anarchists (anarcho-communist, etc), religious fundamentalists (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc), and just about anyone else that wants to do it there own way, but believes in the fundamental spirit of the nation and it's constitution.

I believe this will be required for every nation around the world in the near future. There isn't any land (besides Antarctica) that isn't claimed by some country. We can no longer simply tell a new generation of humans, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" - that excuse is being used by every nation at the same time. Moreover, we can't simply tell a new generation to vote - we can't expect people to live out their dreams when majority rule bullies minorities into living the way the majority wants. In fact, majority rule forces us to create social groups, discriminate against people outside our group, and empowers the destructive "us vs. them" thinking. It also tends to create political party cycles - every X years, a country will cycle from left, to center, to right, and all the way back. This is a waste of time and energy.

My question is - what is required to make this happen?

Minorities have always ruled the roost and have always forced the majority to have to accept their programs and agendas. That is why Canada and pretty much the rest of the world is in turmoil. All the silly ass programs and agendas that we have in place today would not be in place if minorities didn't run the show. Minorities are the bullies. 

[H10]

On 10/29/2017 at 3:42 PM, The New Movement said:

I think the current system works for some people, so it's not worth crashing, as they would just fight to rebuild it.

Well given that you have Quebec trying to do it, and those in Barcelona trying to separate, odds arethat it is impractical.  Getting people to not only support your idea but all move to one location is very hard as people follow jobs.  So what if you have a territory, if you cannot get people in it, it doesn't matter.

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, H10 said:

Getting people to not only support your idea but all move to one location is very hard as people follow jobs.  So what if you have a territory, if you cannot get people in it, it doesn't matter.

Indeed. What you need is money, and lots of it. What TNM really needs to do is start a company that makes something useful, make hundreds of billions of dollars, make their corporate HQ/factories/etc in some remote area where no one else lives, so that the entire region is company people, and then very gradually reveal the plan to form an autonomous self-governing region and stress the personal and financial benefits this would provide for everyone there.

From there, you'll then already have a de-facto self-governing region with its own prosperous economy and lots of wealthy and influential people on your side. That will deter a relatively peace-loving country like Canada from just coming in and crushing you by force. Then you can negotiate for greater and greater autonomy from a position of strength. As long as your population remains committed to the goal for a few decades, it might be possible to get what you want. 

But remember, before you can do anything, you need lots of money and lots of people committed to the path. 

[Bonam]

9 hours ago, The New Movement said:

In regards to "love it or leave it" - there isn't any land (besides Antarctica) that isn't claimed by some country. We can no longer simply tell a new generation of humans, "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" - that excuse is being used by every nation at the same time.

Antarctica isn't really "unclaimed". It is closed off by treaty. Even if you had a group of people who followed you to establish a settlement in Antarctica and you managed to become self-sufficient and prosperous despite the harsh climate, it is likely you would eventually be removed by force. 

If you're looking for unclaimed land, you're better off looking outward. The Moon and Mars are too prominent and any claim you made would likely not be respected, but if you were content to establish your nation on an Asteroid, that might do the trick. Ceres or Vesta perhaps? But again, as with any of the other plans, you first need lots of money. 

[The New Movement]

8 hours ago, taxme said:

Minorities have always ruled the roost and have always forced the majority to have to accept their programs and agendas. That is why Canada and pretty much the rest of the world is in turmoil. All the silly ass programs and agendas that we have in place today would not be in place if minorities didn't run the show. Minorities are the bullies. 

Minorities would say that the majority was the bully first, and they just are trying to even the playing field.

[The New Movement]

7 hours ago, H10 said:

Well given that you have Quebec trying to do it, and those in Barcelona trying to separate, odds are that it is impractical.

This is just the beginning. I believe there will be a lot more minority groups trying to claim some form of independence and their own space. Vancouver Island is another group within Canada. Once word gets out that this will work for new communities, as well as existing ones, I'm sure we'll see a lot more interest.

 

Quote

Getting people to not only support your idea but all move to one location is very hard as people follow jobs. 

The issue of jobs will be solved by the community. Some communities might solve it through a communist-type system, others might not have a need for jobs, and will be happy to just provide food and shelter for each other.

In essence, not every community will chase money like our current society.

 

Quote

So what if you have a territory, if you cannot get people in it, it doesn't matter.

I believe there will be enough interest for people to move. There are a lot of people that would love to live a different way of life, but cannot because we haven't given them a space.

Edited October 31, 2017 by The New Movement

[The New Movement]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

Indeed. What you need is money, and lots of it. What TNM really needs to do is start a company that makes something useful, make hundreds of billions of dollars, make their corporate HQ/factories/etc in some remote area where no one else lives, so that the entire region is company people, and then very gradually reveal the plan to form an autonomous self-governing region and stress the personal and financial benefits this would provide for everyone there.

From there, you'll then already have a de-facto self-governing region with its own prosperous economy and lots of wealthy and influential people on your side. That will deter a relatively peace-loving country like Canada from just coming in and crushing you by force. Then you can negotiate for greater and greater autonomy from a position of strength. As long as your population remains committed to the goal for a few decades, it might be possible to get what you want. 

But remember, before you can do anything, you need lots of money and lots of people committed to the path. 

Thanks, that's certainly one way of going about it. This seems to be what Vancouver Island is doing.

I think this would work for capitalist communities, but not for non-capitalist communities, so we need a new province/territory that, from the outset, isn't married to any economic or political system.

[The New Movement]

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

Antarctica isn't really "unclaimed". It is closed off by treaty. Even if you had a group of people who followed you to establish a settlement in Antarctica and you managed to become self-sufficient and prosperous despite the harsh climate, it is likely you would eventually be removed by force.

Yes, I can't imagine anyone wanting to live in Antarctica, including myself :-)

 

Quote

If you're looking for unclaimed land, you're better off looking outward. The Moon and Mars are too prominent and any claim you made would likely not be respected, but if you were content to establish your nation on an Asteroid, that might do the trick. Ceres or Vesta perhaps? But again, as with any of the other plans, you first need lots of money. 

That's a bit too outward for today. There's plenty of land on Earth, but it's just not being managed well.

Edited October 31, 2017 by The New Movement

[PIK]

Lets just give the 416 to america.

[H10]

19 hours ago, Bonam said:

Indeed. What you need is money, and lots of it. What TNM really needs to do is start a company that makes something useful, make hundreds of billions of dollars, make their corporate HQ/factories/etc in some remote area where no one else lives, so that the entire region is company people, and then very gradually reveal the plan to form an autonomous self-governing region and stress the personal and financial benefits this would provide for everyone there.

From there, you'll then already have a de-facto self-governing region with its own prosperous economy and lots of wealthy and influential people on your side. That will deter a relatively peace-loving country like Canada from just coming in and crushing you by force. Then you can negotiate for greater and greater autonomy from a position of strength. As long as your population remains committed to the goal for a few decades, it might be possible to get what you want. 

But remember, before you can do anything, you need lots of money and lots of people committed to the path. 

Pretty much this.  Although, I'd suspect it just be easier to buy off the government in some small province like PEI than to do his plan. I'd imagine if you were a billionaire, it'd be easier to buy off half the parliament in a small place like PEI or Yukon than to carry out that plan.