From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:38:18 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <BvGCp3.9sH@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>: The debate is between a domineering federal government and a
>: domineering provincial government.  Asymmetry and federalism and
>: equal provinces can be obtained by changing the paradigm of
>: the division of powers to a paradigm of empowerment of people.
>: 
>: The fact that we cannot achieve an economic common market and
>: union, even when combined with a social charter and enhanced
>: equalization is clear evidence of the narrowmindedness of this 
>: Accord.                            
>
>But look a the Maastricht treaty debate in Europe. It is no easier there.
>The national governments are now the states of a larger union. Governments of
>any stripe can't conceive of anything else. It is only by revolution that
>something new can be done. Is there something inherently wrong with
>the federal concept?
>

Charlottetown isn't about federalism...it is about destroying
federalism...denying the greater whole and the dignity of the
individual, and embracing tribalism by region or designated collectivity
whole hog.  Federalism is not a pole with provinces and the federal
government on opposing ends...it is an equilateral triangle with
the greater whole or federal government at one vertex, the provinces
and collectivities at another, and the individual at a third.
Charlottetown snaps the link of our common citizenship between
the federal government and the individual...and collapses the
triangle into a line segment, where everything depends on the
province or collectivity...on the tribe.

>: People will create distinct provinces if they have the power
>: to.  The issue should not be between a powerful federal government
>: or a powerful provincial government, but making powerful people,
>: who will create powerful and distinct provinces in a powerful
>: federation.  Governments are taking even more power from the
>: people in this Accord...not giving them more.
>
>There is a need for collective rights too. There is a need to trust others
>with their own affairs. The Accord does give more powers to the Aborigines and
>the Francophones but why must we anglophones be paternalistic to them? We've
>got so much, and it is not threatened.
>

Collectives have rights if individuals have rights.  The converse is
not true.

>: It is why we have to smash this process and this Accord by
>: voting "no"...
>: 
>
>You have no respect for collective rights, Gerald. Are you some sort of
>laissez-faire Libertarian individual who thinks everything would be
>solved if everyone had complete powers? And no state could take any away?
>Get Real. There are needs on a greater scale than the individual, Gerald.
>

You'll get an awful lot of Libertarians mad by calling me a
libertarian...I support public health insurance, a universal training
entitlement, and recognize there is a legitimate role for government,
both provincial and federal, in society...which are hardly
Libertarian ideas.  I advocate balanced federalism...Charlottetown
is balkanized federalism which traps individuals in a patchwork
country and denies a common citizenship.

>Vote YES and this country can move FORWARD!
>

Vote YES and move forward to DOOM!

Vote for your Canadian citizenship...vote NO!

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics