The Republic of Canada
- Thread starter Cobalt_Kid
- Start date
The end of the British empire meant Canada had to forge a new path. I don't think most Canadians were imperialists in the first place. People have come here for the freedom, the multiculturalism deal is a bonus. They would come in droves anyway to get away from their crappy repressive govts that ensure their poverty and dissatisfaction.
you're kidding?? Right???
If not you should look up Larouche. You guys will get along fine...
Canada is a Commonwealth coming of age....A little parliament would be good and some politicians that actually gave two hoots about the people, but all in all, we'll be just fine.
At the shaking of 2008 did our Banks fall??? That should tell you something about the structure of this country.
It should also tell you something about the US....
More bottom line thinking as far as I'm concerned, a nation is the sum of much more than it's economic health(and Canada has become too dependent on the energy sector to get complacent there).
If you don't see a downward trend in how responsive and responsible our federal government is to the electorate then you haven't been paying attention.
Maybe it's a waste of time getting too worked up about democracy and nationhood in a world where multi-national corporations seem to hold more and more of the cards, but it would be nice to hold onto some semblance of freedom and independence... even when we have a PM who definitely listens more to the oil lobby than he does the voters.
Oh.
I thought you'd like them. I was simply amplifying yours. lol
In a more concrete way I thought.
Cobalt, I agree with you, but the issue is centralization of power and authority. That's what the current national political parties are trying to bring about.That has little to do with Republic. You think a Republic system will create freedom??? That's a joke.They never have and never will.You're pissed about light corruption that gets in the way of running the country? Me too, but the US is just as bad, and broke to boot.
Economy = Feed the Sheep, thus is one of the three pillars of society.......
Let's list a few Republics, shall we?
Vietnam
Iraq
Haiti
France
United States
African Republics
Let's list a few Commonwealth based countries:
Great Britain
Australia
New Zealand
Canada
South Africa
Russia (a federated commonwealth under the current model)
See any trends???
I'm not pissed about lite corruption as more concerned with the steady decay of the democratic system here and decline in respect for our elected body. If we already have PMs who seem to think they're the center of power then lets create a system that allows the nation to function that way, with the separation of executive, legislative and judicial.
Much of the problems in the US can be traced to the Cold War and the whole military-industrial complex thing and if that nation doesn't get it's act together it's not going to be around much longer, no debate there.
Republic, monarchy, who cares? Exploitation of people exists in both. Tell me that Canada's plutarchy (oh sorry, I meant monarchic democracy) where big business and banks have more control over the gov't than the people do is better than Switzerland's democratic republic where nothing is done by the gov't without the people's consent and I'll laugh at you.
We elect the scum that tells us how we should live and is swayed by every big business and bank in the country. Genius.
We elect the scum that tells us how we should live and is swayed by every big business and bank in the country. Genius.
Ahh, in that I agree, the correct system is a hybrid between what we have now and the US system of doing things. We actually have come at the same problem from different views...
I'm sorry, I didn't explain myself. My position is that the forest of our land is its salvation. Sustainable working forest mind you, with appropriate reserves for conservation. Our economics are related to it in more ways than most know. There is substantial wealth still in them yet unexplored.
Republic systems breed a sort of industrial efficiency, allowing for the nation to bear the cost of carrying a big military, but are extraction and consumption driven. The simple fact is that they burn out quickly from an economic model point of view.
Haiti used to be a forestry nation.....
Commonwealth, on the other hand as a history of sustainability back to ancient Israel.
But commonwealths don't compete industrially with Republics well, but in general become "supplier nations" of some sort. They aren't out in the front competing because they're not designed that way. Their measure is conceptually "Quality of Life".
Do we prefer the Republic's promise of freedom and equality or a commonwealth model promise of justice and fairness? High return vs. sustainability if you follow the cause and effect of each philosophy.
But when you talk of the degradation of public office, well I'd say the politicians are like canaries in a coal mine as they reflect the tone and subject of public discourse.
I think there needs to be a code, chivalry might be a bit passe' but some form of code and it should be honoured and respected. We learn more from honest debate and sharing of views anyway.
Well, I'd pass on a hybrid of the US and our system. Correct? That's a matter of opinion. I'd prefer a more direct democracy because as soon as you have a few people representing the rest, you have dysfunction. Representatives in North America don't seem to be trustworthy. And if the representatives reflect anything, it's not so much the public as business. Profit over people.
Even direct democracy may not work all that well. It is interesting to note that some very undemocratic propositions have been passed by popular vote in the USA and that Switzerland, which supposedly has a direct democracy, kept women from voting until 1971. What seems to work best is a government that is responsive to the wishes of the people and that requires a well-informed and politically active bunch of voters; something that Canada probably does not have.
To me it really doesn't matter what form it takes, I also believe in the greatest amount of citizen participation possible. The ones who complain about how inconvenient democracy is seem to me to be the ones who are most out for themselves.
Modern technology should make direct democracy more of a possibility in the future, things like quantum computing would allow hack-proof transfer of information for instance. Imagine getting to vote on trade bills or indicate exactly how your income tax is spent.
Supposed direct democracy? Sorry, it IS a country with THE most directly democratic government in the world. There isn't one closer.
Federally, women weren't voting til 1971. They'd been voting locally since 1959. Anyway, you are saying that they haven't progressed? That because they used to do such and such makes their gov't no good? That what their gov't is like now is irrelevant?
If direct democracy won't achieve what the voters want then how could you expect a representative democracy to do it? That's just laughable.
Basically what you and Cobalt Kid seem to be saying is akin to "I want an apple. Any apple. But I want a red apple. But don't call it an apple."
Anna you have a terrible habit of reading into my posts things that I did not say. Please show me where I said that the Swiss government is "no good."
As for direct democracy achieving what the voters want I was just pointing out that what the voters want might not necessarily be very democratic. Even a mob can be democratic, however, that does not mean it will act intelligently or fairly.
I stand by my comment about a real democracy requiring well-informed voters. A democracy of bigots isn't much of a democracy.
As for direct democracy achieving what the voters want I was just pointing out that what the voters want might not necessarily be very democratic. Even a mob can be democratic, however, that does not mean it will act intelligently or fairly.
I stand by my comment about a real democracy requiring well-informed voters. A democracy of bigots isn't much of a democracy.
Not sure how you get that from what I'm saying.
All I'm really saying is what we have now in Canada is a sham democracy. Let's all go to the polls every fours years or so and pretend it makes a difference.
The problem as I see it isn't the people who we're forced to 'select' to represent us but the 'democractic' system we have itself.
If the techonology exists to have open and fair elections(or can be developed) and there are other models out there that allow for a necessary separation of power to ensure a balanced form of government, then if we really do want to govern ourselves(and that's debatable) then we better do something about it while we still can.
You didn't. You implied it when you added the word "supposedly". Please show where I said you said that the Swiss gov't is no good.
Do you not understand the definition of democracy? Democracy means rule by majority (the majority being the mass of the people). If the majority of voters want something, it is democratic regardless of whether it is a good thing or bad.
I disagree. A democratic country can be just as ill-informed as a dictatorship, plutocracy, or any other country. It would be better if all a country's people were well-informed, but being informed is not a requirement of any brand of gov't.
If a country is a democracy where the majority of people are or are not bigots is irrelevant to being a democracy. The Swiss simply have a better gov't than we do and it is because the Swiss people are the power of the country, not their representatives. They could be a little more tolerant, I agree, but they have what they want.
Any government that is capable of deliberately withholding the same rights that its members enjoy is not a better government than Canada's. For the first few decades of its history it could quite easily be argued that the government of the United States was better than that of Canada. To a large extent that was true, however, most Americans conveniently ignored the fact that one person in eight in the US was a slave, and that women, aboriginals, and orientals could not vote.
Unfortunately, your definition of democracy seems rooted somewhere in the original Greek definition of democracy which originated in Athens. It is worth remembering that this early democracy only applied a small percentage of the actual population. A modern democracy attempts to govern in the interests of all citizens not just those who hold power, and pays some attention to human and minority rights. It is no longer a simple matter of who has the most votes. That is why most modern democracies entrench certain rights certain rights in a constitution so that simple majorities cannot take them away.
As for your comment that a government of bigots would be democratic I think you are really stretching it. The government of Adolf Hitler was a government of bigots and although it was elected I defy you to show me that it was in any way in tune with the Canadian concept of democracy.
Hmm I screwed up that post. I didn't mean to put part of my reply into part of AnnG's post. Oh well - my apologies. I hope readers can figure out that mess. I'm never going to be able to figure out this multiple quote thing.