Well, the same people who want to secede from Quebec are the very ones who outlawed English. They actually want to get rid of English by forming their own country. They have the freedom to form their own French language only country if they want to.
I didn’t ask you what you would do. I asked you if you believe that individuals have the right to choose their own form of government, or to change their form of government, or to choose self-rule and keep their property.
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question. Are individuals sovereign or not?
J’ai lu un des programmes des separatistes que l’a dit.
Don’t get your hopes up.
Individuals are sovereign, but society must impose limits when people’s sovereignty attack other people’s sovereignty. That’s the whole point of the existence of governments and that is why governments will always exist within the context of civilization.
Why can the market not do this?
Qu’est-ce que t’as lu, exactement? Merci!
Because markets tend to behave like governments, devising ways to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few. The criticism that Rothbard claims about small governments that tend to be larger, in my opinion, can also be applied to markets with a monopolistic drive.
huhhhh? Would you mind elaborating?
I’d love to. This is a hypothesis I just came up with. I will elaborate on it later. I’ll keep it in mind.
je me souviens pas :(((( desole
Who is society? Everyone is sovereign. You have to make up your mind. Either individuals are sovereign, or they are not.
But basically, you seem to agree that people have the right to secede peacefully. Now the question becomes, how come we cannot?
There is no point to government. That is what we are trying to teach you. Government can only curtail liberty, not increase it.
I have my mind made up in the sense that things are not either black or white. The universe is just too complex for such clear-cut statements. That is the whole point why intetger numbers are expanded to rational numbers, and then real numbers, and then complex numbers. Individuals are sovereign, but there are nuances that withhold that sovereignty. A child just born is not sovereign. As he or she grows into adulthood becomes partially more sovereign. I do not believe 100% sovereignty is even possible, there are genetic and other factors preventing such an utopia.
That is a cop out answer. If I can prove things are black and white, will your made up mind, insist they are not?
The nuances withhold sovereignty or other people do through coercion?
This is black and white, you can’t expect to be taken seriously as an intellectual, with a consistent and logical worldview, if you rely on animal spirits and outer universe phenomena.
We’re not talking about children. But for the sake of argument let’s stick to adults. How can an adult not own themselves (be sovereign)? Are you saying that a person or group has a higher claim on an individual, than that individual does themselves?
And if so, by what authority? If I own myself, and someone claims ownership of me, is this not theft, or slavery?
We’re not talking about a utopia. We’re talking about a rational understanding, of whether or not individuals are sovereign. Do they own themselves, and thus do they have the right to individual self-determination, outside any collective or majority body decision.
But then, you’re now tweaking the definition of sovereignty to avoid answering directly, factually, rationally.
Good riddance!
They’re a huge welfare dump and they want to leave? Its win-win. (Eh, I still won’t get that money back)
Would you say governments have (or should have) 100% sovereignty over their countries (with respect to foreign governments that is) and are fully capable of dealing with international conflicts diplomatically and/or without resorting to violence?
If so, here’s a thought experiment: just repeatedly divide each country down into smaller counties (as long as everyone is being ruled it’s totally practical, right?), until you can divide no further, i.e. every estate is a nation unto itself and borders between counties are arranged according to land ownership. In what quality does this situation (anarchy) differ from the above to make it necessarily impractical?
I’ll put it this way: There’s no doubt that the people of Canada would be much better off without Quebec as part of their country.
The same would be true for Quebec in the long term , but in the short term, the Quebec political establishment is much worse than the canadian one, much more interventionist and statist.
Canada also has a political welfare system (the perequation calculation) where rich provinces (i.e. relatively more free and prosperous) have to pay poorer provinces large amount of money because they are poorer. Note that this money doesn’t go directly to the people, but to the provincial governments, which they use unavoidably to increase their power.
The central canadian government rewards oppresive and incompetent provincial government (such as Quebec) and punishes successfull ones (such as Alberta). To have an idea of that transfer payment, the Quebec government receives the equivalent of about 1000$ per man, woman and child from richer provinces on that account alone.
So having Quebec being a separate country would undoubtfully make it poorer in the short term, although because smaller states have higher competition from their neighbour, they would eventually be pressured to have more (classical) liberal policies or face exodus of their productive citizens.
As opposed to “Le Quebec Libre”, which is basically saying “The Quebec State independent from the Canadian State”, people should be focused instead on “Le Quebecois Libre” i.e. the quebec person freedom.
Bottom line: The rest of Canada should kick out Quebec out of the Confederation, then the atlantic provinces, then Ontario (with all its bureaucrats), then the remaining states should split up. That would be a good start for the well being of the canadian people.
It is quite arrogant to pretend that you must teach me something. Perhaps there are other things you could take the chance to leaarn from me a well. This forum is not a one-way street.
I’m not pretending, and I’m not even sure we can teach someone who doesn’t ground his in rational analysis. But hey, let’s give it a shot.
Maybe. Do you have anything objective to share?
Great post. I didn’t know there were so many Canadian secessionists here.