 |
|  |
 |
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
I did... |
You gave the patently ridiculous argument that anyone can "secede" when it suits them. Which I pointed out generates ridiculous counterexamples that destroy the point of democracy.
quote: Agathon, if you're going to keep saying "this is not sufficient reason for seceding", you're going to have to tell us what IS sufficient reason... |
No I don't. All I have to do is show that your assertion is false to refute your argument. Any subsequent arguments I provide are besides the point of proving you wrong. In fact nowhere have I explicitly argued that separation is out of the question - I just think your reasons aren't good enough because they are based on a ridiculous and anti-democratic premise.
quote: It's a region with specific interests that are very important to us, not important at all to the rest of Canada, and as such the federal government doesn't even consider them... |
So you've said. As I said this goes for other regions and individuals, but it would be ridiculous to give all of them the right to determine government policy. Get to the point.
quote: A majority opinion while ensuring it's not unfairly targeting a minority. Again, look at Kyoto: The way the Liberals currently have it rigged will shelter vote-rich Ontario and hammer Alberta. Should that be permitted, or should all provinces equally take the hit from Kyoto? |
How should this be decided, by a democratic majority or not. I'd agree with you that the Kyoto implementation is unfair, but lots of government policies are unfair to certain persons. But no one said that democracy was perfect, it is just the least worst system.
quote: You're the one that called the US senate undemocratic, when they're ELECTED. Remind the foreigners reading this thread how Canada's senate is made up, and explain how this is remotely democratic and why it hasn't been changed.  |
I don't mind if the Canadian Senate goes or is changed. All I have claimed is that if it is changed it will have to be changed by democratic means. That is sufficient for my point. And merely having an election is not sufficient. We could imagine a system in which a white person's vote counts for 100 black votes. Someone elected by this system would be an elected representative, but it would not be a fair election.
quote: Easy. The right to our own resources, as guaranteed to us in 1930, but then stripped away from us on whim in the early 80s by a greedy Frenchman in Ottawa named Trudeau... |
You should say an elected greedy Frenchman.
quote: Of COURSE it comes from the tax! That's NOT THE ISSUE though. The issue is the distribution of funds from Ottawa, which is related to Ottawa's interests in province's problems. Ottawa takes money from Alberta and gives it to other provinces, constantly. That's fine, as long as Ottawa doesn't give us the shaft all the time, all right? I'm not taking issue with the tax system at all. Okay...? I'm taking issue with how Ottawa can do whatever they want with it, shafting particular regions constantly. |
Your argument seemed to be, "we pay more so we should get more" (at least this is the usual argument). So now you don't object to being taxed - great. Presumably though there would be two ways of solving the problem - one would be Alberta getting more, the other would be Albertans paying less. From what I've heard I'm willing to bet that most Albertans, being of the conservative persuasion, would rather pay less - so it is about taxation after all.
But the argument still holds - why should the government's spending policy be based on what a minority of Canadians (in this case Albertans) think it should be based on? That would be anti democratic. Ottawa can do whatever they want with it because they are an elected government. If Canadians don't like it, they are free to vote for another party.
You still haven't answered this question: what gives Albertans the right to defy the wishes of an elected government? The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what? Ottawa shafts a lot of Canadians and regions, that doesn't give the shafted persons the right to opt out of Canada, anymore than anyone with a grievance has a right to break the law when they feel like it.
Your argument seems to be, "If someone doesn't like the government's policy, then they can usurp the place of the electorate and overturn it". That's silly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
You gave the patently ridiculous argument that anyone can "secede" when it suits them. Which I pointed out generates ridiculous counterexamples that destroy the point of democracy. |
I asked when you considered it appropriate for a region to secede, since you keep saying certain things are not enough reason. If you're going to keep saying that, you need to give guidelines on when you can and can't separate, okay?
quote: All I have to do is show that your assertion is false to refute your argument. |

Are you aware that a province can legally secede under the Canadian constitution, or not? It doesn't seem like you are...
quote: How should this be decided, by a democratic majority or not. I'd agree with you that the Kyoto implementation is unfair, but lots of government policies are unfair to certain persons. But no one said that democracy was perfect, it is just the least worst system. |
A legislative body that cannot create bills, but can send bills back for revision, would be necessary. If a province like Alberta thinks they're being unduly "raped" of their resources as we were in the early 80s, there should be some mechanism for us to fall back on.
I mean, Trudeau blatantly ignored legal agreements the Federal government signed in 1930 with Alberta when he made the NEP -- there's just no checks on power in the current system. It needs to be fixed.
quote: I don't mind if the Canadian Senate goes or is changed. |
Which is precisely why it's pointless for Albertans to keep staying and hope eventually we reform it. Most Canadians have that same attitude you have -- they don't care that it's useless.
quote: You should say an elected greedy Frenchman. |
Wasn't elected by Alberta. Which is why we were a target, in fact. 
quote: Your argument seemed to be, "we pay more so we should get more" (at least this is the usual argument). |
NO! God no.
My argument is "we pay more, so we should get THE SAME".
We don't get any say in it. Hell, Alberta has someone in Chretien's cabinet. Great in theory, right? Only Chretien ORDERED her to vote yes on Kyoto. 
quote: But the argument still holds - why should the government's spending policy be based on what a minority of Canadians (in this case Albertans) think it should be based on? |
Please...please...please knock off that same strawman. I've tried to correct you about half a dozen times now but you still don't get it. I'm not saying Alberta should rule the country, I'm saying Alberta shouldn't be subject to the bullshit of Kyoto, Chretien appointing senators for Alberta even though they're not who we voted for, how Chretien orders Alberta Liberals (there are a few) on what to vote for even though it's not in the interest of Alberta, etc. THAT is antidemocratic.
quote: That would be anti democratic. Ottawa can do whatever they want with it because they are an elected government. |
You have a WEIRD definition of democracy!
Elected governments should not be all-powerful -- I guess growing up in the commonwealth you don't understand this concept.
Checks and balances are key. We shouldn't elect dictatorships.
quote: You still haven't answered this question: what gives Albertans the right to defy the wishes of an elected government? |
The constitution. It allows a provinces to secede legally if a referrendum is in favor of it.
quote: The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what? |
"Why are the people in Alberta so upset, I don't understand -- They're just whiners!"
"The answer you seem to be giving is that Ottawa shafts Alberta. So what?"

quote: Your argument seems to be, "If someone doesn't like the government's policy, then they can usurp the place of the electorate and overturn it". That's silly. |
It's in the constitution, baby.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:26
|
|
Asher: you're the one claiming that members of the CF are politically aligned to Albertans. It is up to you to prove your claim.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
How are his comments about chop sticks any different than your previous ones slamming Albertans?
|
It's sad that you can't recognise the difference.
Besides, I only slam whining Albertan separatists like you, not Albertans as a whole.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
I don't see how the use of chop sticks is any more derrogatory as if you made a comment about me using a fork.
But then again, it's always fun to play the persecuted minority card.
But YES! I WILL ADMIT IT!
I use a fork!
Ban me for my racial remarks. |
What in the world are you talking about.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|