The Alberta Refederation Association is a new centrist political organization founded in November 2009. Our goal is to bring about real democracy through real change. We are not a status quo organization and we are not the same old politics of yesterday. With your support we will build the Alberta Refederation Party, a different but viable alternative to the system that holds us hostage to politicians and bureaucrats, not only in this province but across Canada.

Why Refederation?

Problems for Alberta at the fundamental level require fundamental changes. An Alberta Refederation Party government will propose three (3) fundamental political changes to dramatically improve life for all Albertans.

ABRefed is the only entity that will empower the people



www.abrefed.com/

After a quick look and reading only a couple blog posts at abrefed.com I would suggest that the Alberta Refederation Association is not the only choice. It may not be one of the better choices.

I’m still trying to understand ABREFED so keep that in mind as I openly speculate about this, new to me, party.

It wants to use the Swiss model or something like it.

My first thought is why the Swiss model? Sounds like some Euro dreaming to me, something like someone from Europe moves to Canada and says, “Hey it was better at home”. I have no idea what the history is but I suspect others might think that is the Swiss connection.

So I read this in the blog:

The European Union and the United States should consider the successful freedom model of Swiss confederation government rather than the failed top down examples of other nations and empires. Few would question that Switzerland is the most secure, stable, and freedom-oriented nation in the world but it is time to ask what is so unique about the Swiss.

Of course the States should consider it (couldn't care much about that as I see them as sovereign) and maybe we should too. If only to see , what it does well, what parts might work for us and what we can learn from it. I’m not so sure we should use it as a template because Canada is unique. The question was asked in the blog what was unique about Switzerland.

The answer is there is nothing particularly different about the nation or its people. They like to work hard, play hard and provide a good life for their families. So do the citizens of most other nations when given the opportunity.

I would not agree with that at all, they are unique (like the rest of us). Switzerland has a very different history than Canada. They are a much smaller country, bordering no superpowers, and have very few cultures and really only three of any significance, German French and Italian.

Hugely different is Canada, with 4 times the population, 200x the area, many more cultures of major significance, many more languages, many more variations in climate, geography, and history. It does not look like the Swiss would have any solutions that would address any of our issues.

Then the post has this:

The term "Willensnation" is a Swiss concept of national growth and expansion by attraction through the voluntary association of neighboring principalities, cities, and individuals. This makes Switzerland a nation created by acts of free will rather than force. Growth by attraction of those willing to be part of the Helvetian Confederation rather than war and invasion have served the Swiss well over the last few hundred years of peace and prosperity.

Ok now I’m listening but again Canada is nothing like Switzerland. In the case of Canada the neighboring principalities (provinces) all have different backgrounds. Two of them Upper and Lower Canada, formed to be Canada, then added other independent colonies, who then created other principalities (like Alberta)to fund and serve the purpose of the original members of Canada, not to mention various other Nations within those areas. The fact that the Canadian principalities include various Nations, some who think they are Canada, some that are provinces, some regions, some territories and some that currently have no physical territory have to be taken into account.

This is what I see to be the failing of the idea. An idea that at first look appears good really doesn’t get beyond this point for me.

The blog post makes no attempt to address these issues other than how they would relate to the USA.

Sure the idea of devolving power from Ottawa is similar and needed in Canada but I fail to see how the other ideas would fit the Canadian model.


The New Confederation needs to take into account that we are already in a confederation and in Canadian fashion would evolve from that rather than in American or Swiss fashion have a dramatic shift, break or revolution.

Many of the good ideas of the Swiss model are really bad ideas for Canada. The idea that, like the Swiss model, every language that comprises 1% of the population achieves equal status to English is not going to be accepted and will result in many more official languages than the mere 4 that Switzerland has.

These issues are not addressed yet many U.S. issues are.

To be frank it appears this ideal is being pitched to Americans and some Canadians, with a weak knowledge of Canadian history think it might apply here. I applaud the effort but believe we need a made in Canada solution and this is clearly not it.

CAP on the other hand is a Canadian Party and is not trying to transplant one model, they are trying to create a Canadian model.

I have no idea where they are on Re-federation, or a New Confederation of Nations or even devolving power from Ottawa but they at least are Canadian.

Well you need to read is as it will ensure the people will have VETO power over any legislation, we can no longer allow our politicians to rubber stamp any thing that passes their desk,,, This old party system has failed the Canadians,,, and is designed to ensure the Canadian people have no say,,,


Yes it s new party, but it’s a party that will limit the power of elected officials,, final say will be from the people on all matters,,,,, what a concept,,, should have been this way since Canada was formed,, under this old party system we have no say

Based on Direct Democracy

Direct Democracy has the potential to put absolute control over government ... A proper Direct Democracy Act would be the ultimate victory of “people”



Well you need to do some home work on this part but basically,, the constitution for each province define what politicians will be able to do,, in other words it will put a leash on them,, and we have control of the leash..


Well of course Canada is nothing like Switzerland,, in Switzerland the people can create legislation, VETO legislation,, or fire a politician well in office,, what a concept,,, As it is now in Canada politicians do as they please, and we pay the blunt of it,, look what has happened just recently bank bail outs,, when do the people get bail out never,,,

The corruption in Canada political system is out of control





The Canadian model, we have no model anymore,,, the existing Canadian constitution is an act of parliament, not a constitution, Also the charter of rights states in fine print if your name is not on the charter of right you have no rights,,, did you check to see if your name is on it,, bet you won’t be able to find it,,,,

This Canadian political mess has gone on far to long,, We cannot trust any elected official anymore,, the thought we have a voice in this political system is joke,,, here is what we are to them, shut up, pay your taxes,, and when we want to here from you, we will contact you. Oh they contact you every 4 years and let you think you have democracy under this current system,, Well we don;t






. Question here what will put the power back to the people,, that is the only thing that will save Canada from this corporate elite take over, and politicians from selling us out…A constitution the defines what politicians can and may do,, and VETO power to the people , with out this, we will continue down this path of self destruction…


There is very little Canadian,,,, our old party system political leaders have given Canada away to foreign elite corporations,, yes nearly everything,,, for example our bank of Canada use to print our money with 0 % interest,, but now we borrow money from private banks that cost us 170 million a day or 60 billion a year and growing,, got to thank our previous politicians for that criminal offence of traitorous activity..

What re federation means taking away from Ottawa the ability to enforce legislation against the Canadian people…

I would research the info on the BC Refed and Albeta Refed Party,, because this parties are elected the rest of Canada will demand the same power over politicians…

refedbc.com/siteA/index.html

www.abrefed.com/

Also to add under this old political system,, many parties were formed to put the power back to the people, but all have failed because,, any party elected has no authority to change the system,, because of the 1867 BNA act,, yep that our constitution,, what it states is the Lieutenant Governor has final say, this system is a dictatorship system

Ex shutting down parliament 2 time in less than a year,, voting GST in,, hmmm you need any more,, because the list goes on and on..

Once these 3 laws are passed and can t be changed unless the BC residents call a referendum, will protect us now into the future from governments that have forgotten who they work for…


1 Installing a BC Constitution placing the people as the ultimate authority, rather than the Premier-chosen Lieutenant Governor.

2 In that BC Constitution, giving the people an optional veto over Victoria legislation, and workable recall.

3 From that BC Constitutional power, renegotiating with Ottawa our provincial rights unlawfully invaded by the federal charter.


THIS IS REAL CHANGE....a change based on 8yrs of intense research and legal credibility — our 1,2,3, plan is the key to our 10 point policy platform designed to lead British Columbia into the 21st century.

WE BELIEVE IN PEOPLE POWER – “REAL CHANGE" INSTEAD OF WORTHLESS PROMISES.

Are these three proposals do-able ? YES

Are they lawful ? YES

That the current federal system has failed us, us in the West, is not in question. All that ramble sounds great but what is ReFed offering? Direct Democracy? Lots of flaws in that but..

The first thing I see as good is the idea of devolving power from Ottawa. This is a natural course for a Confederation like Canada which has seen many Nations rise up and grow up within it. These Nations will demand a say in their future, will become more autonomous as they grow and times go by.

So I like the part that has each Nation taking on more responsibility because that is going to happen and I would like to see that transition be as peaceful as the creation of Canada. Hopefully keeping the Nations together under a Confederation that supplies a common currency, trading policies and other international issues.

So devolving power from Ottawa good, that ReFed wants to wait to do that is not good. Would they work with other parties that want to do that first? Looks like it.


Still I see much bad in the ideas. The lack of knowledge of Canadian history and the lack of pride in what we have accomplished is not respectful. Great if you want a revolution, great if you want war but bad if you want a peaceful transition to a new system.

Canadians, historically, prefer peaceful transitions. Sure some first and second generation Canadians may not but the longer they are here the more peaceful they become. Not saying the push from new Canadians is not good, there were many fiery first Generation Canadians behind the creation of the BNA and it wasn't all peaceful but it wasn't revolutionary either.

So I'd say stop knocking Canada by suggesting we do not have history, traditions, and a knowledge of how to do this politics thing. That people do not know about them does not mean we do not have them or are affected by them.

Direct democracy is not Canadian. We have never had that, except on some local levels, and have rejected it soundly on several occasions.

The reason was made very clear in the constitutional discussions of the 1800's. Lack of protection of minorities.

Direct or pure democracy works well when there are no minorities or the goal is to assimilate minorities. Canadians have always, going back hundreds of years, been more concerned with the rights of minorities than most Europeans. It is one of those things that makes us Canadian.

Even in melting pots like the USA they rejected Direct Democracy because it cannot defend the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Hence their double majority system adopted by the Swiss.

It works for Switzerland because they are tiny, and then they break themselves up into even smaller bits. Small bits that had been purified through a genocidal history which eliminated the issue of minorities for those small areas.

Canada is so very different. We are large, even our smallest bits are large in area and people compared to Switzerland. We are diverse. We do not have 3 or 4 nations restricted to 3 or 4 geographical areas. We may have dozens of Nations and hundreds of minorities, many within the same geographical area.

To let loose the tyranny of the majority would lead to all out war on many fronts, even within provinces, let alone across the Confederation.

You want that for BC? Are you OK with the results? You are a minority. Do you think you would be OK with the decision of the majority to hold certain jobs for people from Asia only? Or which ever group dominates in a given area or in the province as a whole?

Not likely. Likely you'll want to place many restrictions on Direct Democracy and since you have many American connections it appears they will be your model for those restrictions rather than Canada. After all refed seems to have more knowledge of American history and models than they do of Canadian models.

Don't misunderstand me. I sympathise with your grief and frustration at the Canadian system but progressive growth is Canadian, revolution is not. Direct Demcracy will only occur in Canada after a revolution and Canadians do not want that. Why would we? It would kill the golden goose we all share.

Appealing for more representation is good. Endangering the minorities, our many Nations is not good.

The direction I would suggest is somewhat similar. Instead of looking to Europe and the USA I would suggest we look to Canada, our history, build on what we have, what has worked for us.

As the Nations within Canada grow we should transfer more power to them. I think everyone sees that, particularly in Quebec.

The closer the people are to power, to those making the decisions the more influence they have, the more democratic the system. That means transferring power to the provinces will automatically make the political players, the representatives, more responsive.

You complain in BC that you elected a party that lied. Said there was no HST and then "surprise" they had been working on it all along. You want a VETO.

You already have that. The Canadian system has many paths in which the citizens can, if they so choose, VETO any bill and BC has one that is now being used.

Check out fighthst.com/ and see that we already have some of what you want. There are more details here:
www.elections.bc.ca/index.php/referenda-...ive/initiative/faqs/

You only need 10% to accomplish many of your claimed goals within the Canadian system, why not use that system first? If you do it will get people more familiar with the ideas of Direct Democracy and likely result in more Canadians seeing the benefits and maybe even incorporating them into our own Canadian system.

No offense to the Swiss or Yanks but while we like somethings of your system they really wouldn't work for Canada. I'm sure you can understand as our system wouldn't really work for you. In fact after the South African adoption of some of our political system I would really discourage other countries from doing so.

.

Going to try to answer your questions

What flaw is there in VETO power over polititions.

The first thing we both agree on idea of devolving power from Ottawa. This is a natural course for a Confederation like Canada which has seen many Nations rise up and grow up within it. These Nations will demand a say in their future, will become more autonomous as they grow and times go by.

So we both also agree part that each Nation taking on more responsibility because that is going to happen and I would like to see that transition be as peaceful as the creation of Canada. Hopefully keeping the Nations together under a Confederation that supplies a common currency, trading policies and other international issues.

So devolving power from Ottawa good, BC Refed would work with other provices as the same as in the past, but all descions that polititions do will be CONTROLLED by Direct Democracy VETO power to the residents. that ReFed wants to wait to do that is not good.

Too add when BC gets direct democracy the rest of Canadian provinces will demand it..its how to control your elected officials.. NAFT, TILMA, SPP, and the list goes on wouold have never passed if the peole had there say in these matters,,,Again we have no say,, BC Refed is the only party platform that will put the peole into power rather than this old corrupted system


canada history you mention, we are loosing our history becuase of these parties selling us aoput, time after time..Are you watching the trade deals these Dictators have done to Canada,, We no longer use our Bank of Canada, now we borrow money from private banks, that charge us intrest on nothing,,This party represent pride for canadians,,its going to allow us to back our country from this Dictators

"You said Canadians, historically, prefer peaceful transitions. Sure some first and second generation Canadians may not but the longer they are here the more peaceful they become. Not saying the push from new Canadians is not good, there were many fiery first Generation Canadians behind the creation of the BNA and it wasn't all peaceful but it wasn't revolutionary either."

Canadians did not create the BNA Act, the BNA act was shuvved down our throat like NAFTA..


When were you free to create and ratify a constitution; giving the government any power to do anything?

We Never DID and it’s time we made a constitution for the Canadian people placing the people the ultimate authority.

The B.N.A. Act was a British bill as to how the British wanted to govern their united colony they called Canada.

The Canadian Constitution is an Act of Parliament and not a real Constitution
The British Monarchy is a creation of the British Parliament
Under section 12 in the BNA; the Governor General was in Ultimate control here in Canada

Canada has no Constitution, they make you think you have one, but when the masses have had enough of this dictatorship, we may rise up and create one to limit the power we give to politicians until then we will be slaves in Canada.

And they will continue to dictate policies that affect us everyday.



This is your quote to me "So I'd say stop knocking Canada by suggesting we do not have history, traditions, and a knowledge of how to do this politics thing. That people do not know about them does not mean we do not have them or are affected by them."

I.m not knocking Canada, we are trying to save Canada,, have you seen the damage these dictators have done to our once great country,, false damn war,, scam after scam,,, have you been paying attention,, Police officers dressing up causing riots, and injuring peaceful demonstration of canadains citizens..

You then say Direct democracy is not Canadian. We have never had that,,, I say we should of always had it, who gave these polititions these right I sure did not,, I want a great country but never going to happen under this regime party system,,

here is another of your quotes "The reason was made very clear in the constitutional discussions of the 1800's. Lack of protection of minorities."

Ok the constitution we have does that and also much more for the people, under this system, you have no rights,, have you seen te poverty in this country becuase of this failed system. y the way this system is designed so you cannot voice your opinion,, EXample Montebella Quebec SPP protest,,,


Here is another of your quotes "Even in melting pots like the USA they rejected Direct Democracy because it cannot defend the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Hence their double majority system adopted by the Swiss."

US has no democracy either, they are controlled by a two party fascist system,, have you seen the US,, the american people are rising up agianst the tyrany they are under also, like the rest of the countries are around the world..

This is another of your quotes "Canada is so very different. We are large, even our smallest bits are large in area and people compared to Switzerland. We are diverse. We do not have 3 or 4 nations restricted to 3 or 4 geographical areas. We may have dozens of Nations and hundreds of minorities, many within the same geographical area."

Size, shape,rocky beach, water in your back yard, mean you cannot voice your opinion,,,Every province needs a constitution, and Canada needs one, to define the powers we allow our elected officials..thats what a constitution will give you,, until we have laws protecting us, nothing will chjange under these corporate bought political tyranny.

Here is another of your quotes "To let loose the tyranny of the majority would lead to all out war on many fronts, even within provinces, let alone across the Confederation".

Where did you get that from, so you think being able to control your polititions would lead to a war. Damn we been at war with these dictators since canada was formed.. We want to create democracy, as i never seen it, want our country to lead in human rights, this can all be done by common sence, not under this old corrupted system..



Herer is anothe rof your quotes " You want that for BC? Are you OK with the results? You are a minority. Do you think you would be OK with the decision of the majority to hold certain jobs for people from Asia only? Or which ever group dominates in a given area or in the province as a whole?"

A true constitution will pertect al people, which we have,, you can get a copy of it and read it,, and it explains in clear format, nothing like we have now that useless peice of paper that was to protect us, has not worked..

You say this system in place works,, tell me when it has worked for the majority of canadians, I will look forward to your response on this one.

Here is another one of your quoptes "Not likely. Likely you'll want to place many restrictions on Direct Democracy and since you have many American connections it appears they will be your model for those restrictions rather than Canada. After all refed seems to have more knowledge of American history and models than they do of Canadian models."

Again the US is under martial Law, security forces everywhere,, they have no rights in the US,,, we need to get as far from the US, political mess as we can.. The american people will take control of their country as we need to take back our country from these arogant selfish greedy powers in Canada.


We both agree the closer the people are to power, to those making the decisions the more influence they have, the more democratic the system. That means transferring power to the provinces will automatically make the political players, the representatives, more responsive.

Here is another of your quotes"You complain in BC that you elected a party that lied. Said there was no HST and then "surprise" they had been working on it all along. You want a VETO."

Yes they were working on it, but was not out in the open,another example of corruption in our political mess.They had it created and ready to rock and roll.. thats our current system,, now this is why we need VETO power.

Another of your quotes "You already have that. The Canadian system has many paths in which the citizens can, if they so choose, VETO any bill and BC has one that is now being used."

When where, never seen it, example 500,000 people already signed the petition agianst this, we asked for a referendum, they would never allow that, because that would be democracy, and wow if we ever had that, we may want it again.

I like to address each point but instead will cover some old ground to clarify.

There is lots there we agree on and stuff we don’t agree on. No time to address all the issues but I do feel I have to correct a couple.

The BNA act was very much created by Canadians. People in the West have to understand that they were not and still are not by many, considered Canadians. Canadians lived in Canada. Canada was Upper and Lower Canada combined into a single province or colony.

At the time of Confederation there were only 3 provinces in, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and a province called Canada. After Confederation Canada became Ontario and Quebec.

This little bit of history is rarely explained to Canadians but it is at the heart of why people from "the regions" are not considered or treated as Canadians. That’s because Canada is Ontario and Quebec, all other “Canadians” joined or were created. Hence the reason Ontario and Quebec consider anything good for them is good for Canada and anything bad for them is bad for Canada.
They were Canada and that reality is at the basis of many of their actions.

But I digress, the BNA act was not created by the British, it was created by the Colonists of North America, not all of them of course but 3 of the larger remaining ones. It was passed in the British house but they couldn’t care less what was in it as long as they were out of it.

By 1861 and after the Trent Affair Britain was making it increasingly clear that should the United States attack Canada in a full on war Britain would not, could not, defend us.

The only thing they really forced on us was independence.

They made this very clear in 1867 when they passed without fanfare the bill we, the affected British Colonists, had agreed to. So great was their disinterest that it was commented on by many who attended. It was clear they were glad to be rid.

That was made even clearer in 1926 when they told us point blank that we were autonomous. The Queen nor the British Parliament had no interest in our political affairs and that the Governor General was NOT the Queens nor Britain’s representative in our political system. That ended all political connections unilaterally, Canada and other British Colonies had no say, we were booted out and that was that.

The Constitution of 1982 was all Canada. The Queen came over to sign some docs but Britain laid no claim and had no requirements. We could have completely ignored Britain and they would have been fine with it. That we didn’t was local politics and grandstanding.

As you’ve pointed out it isn’t a Constitution by the people for the people, it is a Constitution created by one political party against the wishes of the majority of Canadians, particularly the majority west of North Bay who still wanted in at the time.

The frustration being expressed is a result of Canadian History, in particular Western Canadian history which is fundamentally different than Canadian History. The West for the most part has not played a role in the rules under which they find themselves. This is normal for all colonies and the Western provinces of Canada were/are colonies created by Canada for Canada, not for the colonies themselves.

That Western Canadians are beginning to feel the frustration of being ruled by people from thousands of miles away, who have a different culture, different history and different ethics shows in our many attempts to effect change, including new political parties.

Presently in Canada our Federal house has 4 main parties and only 3 federal parties. Of those three parties two of them are from Western Canada. Only the Liberal party remains as a Federal Party with Eastern roots and support. The Conservative party has it basis in the West via the Reform party and the NDP has it basis in the West via the CCF.

That alone suggests that up starts like ReFed coming from the West should be taken seriously. I don’t think they are the answer but at the very least they are adding to the very important discussion we must have.

Gotta cut it short, later dudes.



References:

BNA Act not forced: www.cool-teacher.com/canadian_history_notes.htm
• The BNA colonies still belonged to Britain so they needed its permission before forming their own country.
• Britain was in favour of the union (remember the Little Englanders) – it was hoped that if the colonies were united in Confederation, Britain would no longer have to support them.
• The BNA Act was introduced into British Parliament – this Act marked the official creation of the Dominion of Canada.
• 4 Provinces constituted this new dominion: NB, NS and the two Canadas, renamed Ontario and Quebec.
• The BNA Act was built on the Seventy-Two Resolutions set down in the Quebec Conference of 1864.
• July 1, 1867 Queen Victoria signed the proper documents and the BNA Act came into effect.

Canada a single province: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Canada


British attitude towards the BNA act: Sir John A McDonald wrote of the matter: “The union was treated by them much as if the British North America act were a private bill uniting two or three English parishes.” This quote is found in many history books and references including: The Imperial ideals of Benjamin Disraeli by J.L. Morison 1920 found here utpjournals.metapress.com/content/p141g785n1h715v4/
The above quote is from The Assassination of D’Arcy McGee by T.P. Slattery 1968 Chap 19 pg 364

British resistance and or inability to defending British North America: The Trent Affair en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Affair#Briti...cember_31.2C_1861.29 exposes this position but here is a quote from the London Times June 6 1862 which makes the generally accepted position clear.
“Great Britain cannot protect Canada without any aid on her part. It is not in our power to send forth from this little island a military force sufficient to defend the frontier of Canada against the numerous armies which have a learned arms and discipline in the great school of the present Civil War.

Opinion in England is perfectly decided that in the connection between the mother country and the colony, the advantage is infinitely more on the side of the child than the parent. Should the colony wish to put an end to it, we would never draw the sword to defend it;…

Canada told they were autonomous in 1926 by the Balfour Declaration as a result of the King- Byng affair: "They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926

Sorry gotta go

The response of the BC government to the ideal of recall has shown by optimistic view of Direct Democracy to have been false.

Suggesting that ReFed and the ideas they have may be needed now more than ever.

The recall law set a high standard. Clearly it was hoped that no one could achieve that standard but if they did it meant the voters really didn't agree with the government.

When the HST protest achieved that high standard the position of the government was not to let the people decide. Their position was that only the uninformed, deceived, or die hard Liberal voters should have a say in politics.

The Government has determined it can follow the law and yet skirt the intention of the law. They have determined they can ram through any legislation they wish, regardless of the views and opinions of the citizens.

Worst than the response that such overwhelming demand from voters should be dismissed is using Taxpayer dollars to fund a campaign against the voters themselves.

It appears that a crisis is developing in BC, a crisis of democracy. It appears that the Liberal government there are only a few years away from suspending all votes...gee that's something I would expect from the Federal Liberals.

Such an outright rejection of democracy cannot be allowed, first lying to gain power and then using government power and money to hold power against the peoples wishes. It reminds us of the Federal Liberals who stole federal money to fund cronies for years and to fund Liberal Campaigns in sensitive ridings.

The people were helpless to stop that until they finally managed to vote them out many years later but that coup was occurring thousands of miles away and supported by people from a different culture, a different Nation.

It should be much harder to hold power against the peoples wishes when the parliament is close. In the case of BC they are but a short boat ride away from people who seem to be in increasing agreement that democracy should be respected.

Either way, I have to agree those actions are supporting ReFeds positions. I don't see how it would be any different with ReFed ideas. A dictator can take power in any system and the solution is always the same. The people have to stand up (or sit down) and take it back.

A little late joining in on this thread. Good discussion going here.



That question wasn't really answered now was it? Direct democracy is rule by mob.

Types of Government, Explained


Now that is out of the way. The best we have for now is a Republic. Anarchy would only be an option if there was more of a common morality and a common respect for the philosophy of liberty. What we have now is an oligarchy skewing the principles of a republic via cronyism (selective enforcement).

The Philosophy of Liberty
www.libertarian.to/images/animation/Phil...fLiberty-english.swf

As long as corporations and individuals have control over money and the people do not, enforcement of law is leveraged to those who serve the top of the pyramid best.

Before discussing an ideology, a philosophy needs to be set as a framework. I see rule by people in an inverted pyramid type system being proposed basically creating a labour union system where people can garner more power but factions will surely develop creating a party system once again and leaving minorities out of the decision making process.

I'll lead off with a fair and efficient way of meeting needs for now

Consider power as a monopoly board. If one amasses all the property the rest are eventually left with nothing. In the free market goods and services are offered and price is driven by a supply / demand curve. Now there are needs and wants. If there is no choice or substitute for a need than it can only be fulfilled by a single good or service such as water we remove demand out of the equation and we require that good or service produced and distributed in a sufficient quantity and offered at a reasonable price or free. This is where government or some other system can come into the equation of free market principles if the good or service is not being fulfilled to meet those requirements.

Now there is ownership in water, housing, food, clothing, transportation, energy and increasingly in health care products and services. All defined as needs by most.

Not sure what government is doing with education but I suppose they consider it a need to force us to purchase their brand of childhood education because they know best.

A few Resources on Schooling:

John Taylor Gatto :: The Underground History of American Education
www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

School Sucks Project
www.schoolsucksproject.com/podcasts

Pardon the aside on the indoctrination of our children. Back to the common needs of people.

Water
Local control, enforced quality and standards. We do bid for the processing service though usually the choice is take it or leave it since it is controlled by a single processor distributor. Although water is highly regulated it is privately owned at the distribution level. If we have access we can dig a water well. We are also allowed to catch rainwater unlike some US state, like Colorado, where it is illegal. In Bolivia they tried to privatize water but that did not go over very well. Lacking environmental laws are allowing the pollution of water at an astounding rate, even in Canada. The Navigable Waters Act being the most recent

Water Privatization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization

Housing
Housing prices are propped up by banks (you require price approval if a mortgage is involved) but largely determined by demand and there is no real ownership. Your land is taxed by a municipality to fund forced purchases. You are listed as a tenant on your land title. You can be evicted from your home if you are in the way of a resource or a road by the government for the common (often corporate) good. Most people cannot afford a home and buy one outright so loans are required to fulfil this need via 'ownership'.

Money
But since I mentioned it money can be seen as a need to facilitate the exchange. Money is privately owned and regulated to a point by the government by setting interest rates and issuing bonds. Private banking forces control the tap of money and apply usury in a method that needs to be changed in a substantive way. Usury and economics is a really broad topic. But we have a monopoly running our monetary system, and thus the money supply which effects everything that can be bought or sold. Competitive systems of exchange that out are wiped once they gain enough traction.

Oh Canada Our Bought and Sold Out Land
www.ohcanadamovie.com/

to be continued ..