[RPW]

However, a strong federal government necessarily means weakened individual rights. As Ed Deak stresses, there ain't no such thing as a free ride, and there ain't no such a thing as a free market. If it seems free now, one pays the piper down the road. Hence, for the federal government to be all-powerful, the citizens must be least powerful. Municipalities (your city-states) would proivide more rights for the individual at the cost of a weakened federal govt.

But you can't have both...........and a strong government is an imperious government.

---
RickW

[RPW]

The Federalist Party in the US was the beginning of the unravelling of the "Great Experiment" in democracy, even before it got off the proverbial drawing boards. The orignial intent (in broad strokes) was to have a federal government on an ad hoc basis only. The federalists wanted a permanent federal government with powers stronger than those of the citizens. The federalists "won"........

---
RickW

[The Saint]

If a corrupt government is a majority government they cannot be so easily defeated because they hold the majority of house votes. Constitutionally they can stay in power for up to five years.

[The Saint]

"they are reversing Canadian history and precedent for their own means, but conveniently leave out any mention of tradition."

Since when did you care about Canadian tradition and history? I may have read you wrong but my impression of you is that you favour the elmination of Canadian history and tradition, or at least the forgetting of, to make way for the "new Canada."

[Brother Jonathan]

<p>Jacob,</p> <p>certainly several of the predictions that were made in the <i>Papers</i> have proven to not be eternal, e.g. I’d guess that <i>The affairs of the Union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among the citizens at large.</i> (from No. 53) isn’t the case with many of my fellow citizens. Part of the problem is that the average Representative’s district (or “riding”, if you will) has nearly 650,000 people, which can be alienating for many people; at the time of the <i>Papers</i>, it was around 30,000 people per. (We’d need over 9,000 sitting Representatives to maintain that original ratio …)</p> <blockquote>I am not sure if [voting out a government] would be possible in the US (federal and State) or has ever happened.</blockquote> <p>Neither has ever happened, and neither will happen (short of state and/or federal constitutional change), because all of these jurisdictions have governments with fixed term lengths.</p> <blockquote>Moving Canada into the direction of fixed election dates for federal elections would somehow tend to move us away from the privilege to “vote out” the current scoundrels.</blockquote> <p>From my perspective, that’s an appealing feature of the Westminster system. I suppose that the theory here is that if a majority in Congress does something scoundrelous, that they can be voted out within two years; however, that is dependent upon voters retaining their sense of outrage until the next election.</p> <p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

[Brother Jonathan]

<p>Rick,</p> <p>I don’t think so much that the federalists “won” as the anti-federalists “lost”. The <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html">Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</a>, which predated our current Constitution by seven years or so, gave a much smaller rôle to the federal government. I’d guess that its denial to (a unicameral, more parliamentary) Congress of the ability to collect taxes — the states were responsible for collecting what Congress had apportioned, and often didn’t — was its primary weakness.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

[The Saint]

So Stephen Harper is moving to New Hampshire or something???

Anyways, fixed election dates are a good thing. It will make our parliamentary system more accommodating to minority governments by eliminating the opposition parties’ ability to defeat governments based on political expediency. This should be good news for those who favor proportional representation. One major criticism of PR is that it is prone to produce more minority governments and foster greater political instability over the long term. Political instability and strong economies do not go hand in hand. Look at Italy for instance. This nation’s political system pretty much gives it a new government every year meanwhile economic activity is either stalled or slowed down to wait ‘til the dust settled. This is why one commentator noted that Italy favoured adoption of the Euro. It brought fiscal stability to the nation’s fluctuating and internationally unpopular Lira. Fixed election dates bring political stability to otherwise unstable political environments.

Our current electoral “first past the post” system is inherently undemocratic. Majority governments can be elected with a minority of the popular vote as has happed more than once in the past. Some of this is due to pandering to voting blocks in electoral ridings. The conservatives where shut out of the big cities because most of their support base left the city only to be replaced by Liberal supporters. Toronto use to be a conservative stronghold but that all changed once the Liberals began to flood the country with non-traditional immigrants who can be expected to vote Liberal. In a sense the Liberals stuffed the ballots in Toronto and other large urban areas. The reason for this is that the Conservatives are branded as anti-immigrant. Harper tried to win the support of ethnic voters, who can swing many votes in and around Toronto, by appealing to their cultural sensibilities over the traditional form of marriage. In the end the anti-immigrant label won out. It is important to the many ethnic ghettos and colonies in and around Toronto that Canada’s borders stay open and our laws lax and the Liberals are almost guaranteed to bribe them with such promises. Such voting blocks will be disempowered by fixed election dates.

Minority governments are preferable to majority governments. It encourages cross party support. Majority governments are less democratic and more totalitarian. When a majority government is elected Canada is subjected to one-party rule for at most five years. This is bad if that government is Conservative and good if it is Liberal because we all know that the Liberals are the true party of Canada. That’s why most of those currently running for Liberal leader are urban MPs from Toronto and vicinity because Toronto is Canada and therefore Ontario is Canada and screw the lot of ya.

It seems that many here who are opposed to fixed election dates are bothered by the fact that this will give the Harper government more time to, well, govern. They are hoping for a non-confidence vote and force an early election so that they can get rid of the Harper government and deny him the opportunity to show Canadians that he is good as the PM. They are opposed to it on two silly fronts. One is that the Americans do it so therefore it must be bad. The other is that Harper is promoting it so therefore it must be bad. In all they fail to see that fixed election dates may help them in the future but I noticed many of the liberal minded cannot see further than their noses let alone when and where they are going to eat next.

On another note it is nice to see a PM for once who has a vision and acts on it. I was getting tired of the “do nothing or surrender” Liberals of the Chretian years.

[Brother Jonathan]

<p>Jacob,</p> <p>here are a couple of refinements to your synopsis:</p> <blockquote>In the US, the Senate can initiate legislation.</blockquote> <p>The Senate is forbidden from initiating legislation to raise revenue, but can initiate on any other topic, and may amend revenue bills forwarded from the House.</p> <blockquote>[… a bill approved by both chambers] is sent to the President to sign, and he has the right to refuse or veto it. Then the whole thing becomes an exercise in futility.</blockquote> <p>However, a two-thirds vote from both chambers in favour of a vetoed bill overrides the veto.</p> <p>One could look at the Australian Senate as an example of a “mixed-model” upper chamber.</p> <p>On the other hand, New Zealand’s Parliament is unicameral.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

[Brother Jonathan]

<p>I think that Disraeli had a quote about conservatism and change … yup, here it is:</p> <p><i>In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.</i></p> <p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

[Diogenes]

<a href="http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/ruleoflaw.html">http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/ruleoflaw.html</a><br />
<br />
"The government we inherited from our forefathers is indeed a government of laws, not of men. It is a Constitutional Republic (the rule of law), not a democracy (the rule of an unrestrained majority). Because it is a system built on the recognition of the rights of the individual, its laws are directed at controlling government, not the people. The wisdom it contains has generated for Americans the greatest amount of personal freedom in all history."<br />
<br />
<br />
I suggest reading the full article to graspits intent <br />
Brother J<br />
You will have a greater understanding of thee content and how it relates to what you have offered on this thread<br />
Dio<p>---<br>The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.... : Albert Einstein

[Brother Jonathan]

<p>Diogenes,</p> <p>thanks for the link — there’s much at that site to digest.</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

[wasjod]

Well, considering Walmart is also the nation's largest employer, and the largest employer in half of all U.S. states, this isn't a really effective argument. Correlation does not equal causation, and all that. Being the Free State does not explain why it is also the largest employer in so many other states, many of which aren't anywhere near as free as NH.<br />
<br />
" Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer. It is the largest corporation and private employer in the United States. <br />
Wal-Mart is the biggest employer in 25 states. They set the standard for wages and labor practices."<br />
<br />
Source: <a href="http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_actions/walmart_workers_campaign_info/facts_and_figures/walmartgeneralinfo.cfm">http://www.ufcw.org/issues_and_actions/walmart_workers_campaign_info/facts_and_figures/walmartgeneralinfo.cfm</a><br />
<br />
<br />
NH has no sales tax and allows the selling of many things (or sells them for less even before taxes) that near-by states have banned. People drive to NH from 100s of miles in all directions to buy things that they cannot get in their home state and/or cannot get in their home state for such a low price. <br />
<br />
Go to any border town in NH on a major road and you will likely see tons of out of town cars in the near-by stores. That is a lot of families drives from Burlington, VT to NH 1-2 per year just to shop (5 hour round trip). With so many shoppers in NH, it is likely gonna have a lot of people working in retail. If Walmart is so evil why do you shop there? You trying to tell me that you have never shopped at Walmart? Walmart was at New Orleans with water when the big awesome federal government was still licking its own ass.<p>---<br>My freedom is more important than your great idea.<br />
– Anonymous

[Marcarc]

First, to the above, you are misguided, the fixed election dates will NOT apply to minority governments (unless I misread, somebody comment on that, but I'm pretty sure I saw that)

As for New Hampshire, no, I don't shop at Wal Mart, and never have, never will. If you think the sun shines day and night on NH then by all means pack your bags and good luck to you. We really don't care.

I don't know what kinds of 'goods' they sell that you can't get elsewhere. Of course shoppers come from all over Vermont, because there are only six small Wal marts on the west side. Personally, I'd take that state in a minute, but again, that's personal opinion. I don't care for NH, Bostoners have taken over the south, and the north is just an amusement park for weekenders. Just about every hick town has some dumbass tourist trap. But as said, if thats your cup of tea go to it.

I have some suspicions about the NH pay scales for representatives, could you provide a link? Vermont has 180 representatives and senators, their income was I believe $589 for each week served, and they serve from January to April. That still comes out cheaper than New Brunswick, for 57 Members of the Legislative Assembly. This is why I love the net, without this argument I wouldn't have looked into this. I'm going to do a presentation for Ontario's Committee on Democratic Reform. Clearly MORE representatives is a more democratic system, as is paying them less (in my opinion).

While I don't like the dual party system, I think its great to have representatives actually represent a small group of people. I"ve also heard that at least at the state level there is far less 'party discipline' so just because a guy is a republican doesn't mean he's going to vote for something that screws over his home town just because his party boss says so. With more representatives, its less likely that people will be 'in it for a career'.

It's extremely ironic that Harper takes so many pages from the US playbook, but democracy doesn't seem to be one of them.

[wasjod]

Here is the link for the NH state reps pay. Whoops, it was $200 for a member of the state legislature, not $100 as I previously thought.<br />
<br />
Official government site, are we sure they are telling the truth, after all, they are the government.<br />
<br />
[Art.] 15.<br />
<a href="http://nh.gov/constitution/house.html">http://nh.gov/constitution/house.html</a><br />
<br />
Look at the Quick Fact<br />
<a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html">http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
What is wrong? Do you find it so hard to believe that there are places on this planet that have the potential to be better than Canada? Is that what you are afraid of? Or are you afraid of peope being able to make their own decisions and face the consequences of those decisions on their own without a big government safety net provided by the use of force upon others? NH is not being taken over by people from Boston, it is being taken over by Libertarians and boy oh boy am I gonna laugh when the Free State Project shows the rest of this lazy ass planet what true freedom is like. A comment about crap jobs, if someone does not like their job they should get another one, go back to school, do whatever, it is their responsibility to improve their lot in life, not mine. My father was an electrician and my mother a hairdresser, they lead simple lives but told me that if I want lots of consumer crap and a fancy home that I am the one who has to work for it, maybe the rest of this fucked up society needs to learn that lesson as well. Nobody is forced to work at Wal-Mart. I had to move to the UK to get full time employment when I finished university, I could have stayed in Canada and bitched and moaned but I chose to get off my ass and work. If you ever want to know just how much decent work there is in New Hampshire then visit the Free State Project Forums, you might learn a thing or two.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://forum.freestateproject.org/">http://forum.freestateproject.org/</a><p>---<br>My freedom is more important than your great idea.<br />
– Anonymous

[Marcarc]

I'm not sure who the above is referring to, then clearly you are new here, as I am the most active member here trying to bring a little more of that state democracy to Canada. So as you see, some of us are not in life just for ourselves. As said, if you want to 'paddle your own canoe' then head for the south pacific, or head to New Hampshire and start up a 'vivenewhampshire' site and don't bother with the rest of us canadians who are staying put and trying to make this country a better place.

The sun doesn't shine up NH's ass though, as said, they have jobs, they also have poverty, child labour, environmental damage, etc. Clearly from the post above you can read about the changes to local referenda in southern NH, where Bostoners are moving in and approving bonds.

But since its your cat's pajamas, bon voyage and don't let the swinging door bang you on the way out.