Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 382 posts

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#361

Post by 0dayz »

d_burfoot wrote: post #211

Many commenters seem to be appealing to an almost religious defense of present political borders. That attitude is untenable: there is nothing sacred about national boundaries, they are mere political artifacts like rules, regulations, tax codes, etc. If the people want to change them, they absolutely have the right to do so. https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...

Which is why most countries have border guard agency?

It's kind of obvious that borders are not a physical phenomenon but a social construct.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#362

Post by port11 »

d_burfoot wrote: post #211

Many commenters seem to be appealing to an almost religious defense of present political borders. That attitude is untenable: there is nothing sacred about national boundaries, they are mere political artifacts like rules, regulations, tax codes, etc. If the people want to change them, they absolutely have the right to do so. https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...

Where do we draw the line of “people want to change them”?

I’m 100% with the political philosopher Bertrand Russel on this topic: borders are arbitrary, and a benevolent world government/federation of cultures would not restrict your movement or sense of belonging.

But! But how many people must vote yes? What percentage of abstention? If 60% vote to leave, but half the people didn’t vote, only 30% of the yes is valid.

I don’t think this should be taken lightly by populist movements. To me, Brexit has shown us exactly what the dangers are of a non- or weirdly-qualified majority.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#363

Post by boxed »

lm411 wrote: post #197
boxed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean.. it's not like it's Alberta that produces the oil. Oil is concentrated in smaller places than that, so why shouldn't those places then separate from Alberta?

Incorrect. If you've ever been through Alberta you'd already know that though. Oil & gas fields, and wells, are distributed over much of Alberta. https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/catalog/Map90_Oil_Gas_Fi...

I meant that the oil fields themselves could just as well declare that they wanted out of Alberta after Alberta splits. Splitting goes all the way down.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#364

Post by throwthrowuknow »

triceratops wrote: post #272
throwthrowuknow wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a very anti-democratic option whether taken voluntarily or forced. When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line

> When you leave you cut all important ties to the polity, you surrender your ability to participate in democratic processes and you revoke control over yourself and your property. It’s the nearest thing to direct violence you can do without crossing that line If that's true then isn't it better individuals do this "almost violence" only to themselves, of their own volition? Rather than impose it on everyone living i…

Do individuals matter in a democracy?

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#365

Post by Aachen »

ryandrake wrote: post #252
Aachen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me. They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! We can't know what they want if they don't or can't vote. Putting "they voted yes" in their mouth sounds insulting to me, but I'm an outsider to the UK so maybe it's wrong…

If you choose not to vote, then you are implicitly voting for "whatever ends up winning."

You leave it to others if you choose not to vote, yes, but you didn't vote, neither implicitly nor explicitly. It doesn't allow one to add you to the tally of voters for yes or no as the person above did

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#366

Post by Aachen »

u_fucking_dork wrote: post #244
Aachen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me. They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! We can't know what they want if they don't or can't vote. Putting "they voted yes" in their mouth sounds insulting to me, but I'm an outsider to the UK so maybe it's wrong…

> They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! Yes, of course, they didn’t give a shit. They couldn’t be bothered. Outcome was whatever for them.

Or they couldn't vote (besides work and caretaking, Wikipedia mentions that a few thousand's ballots were invalid before the vote even started due to an accounting error), or they thought "don't give our neighbors the finger" was a foregone conclusion. I should also hope that such a vote in my country, where it's economic suicide much more than in the UK, goes to an easy "no", but since Brexit I've learned that I need to always encourage everyone to make time and vote anyway no matter how dumb it seems. They didn't have that example and I'm not so sure if a confirming vote would habe turned out the same way for example

You can say a lot of things about the majority of this group but not that it was necessarily irrelevant to the whole group

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#367

Post by Aachen »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #258
Aachen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me. They didn't know the outcome beforehand; had odds fallen the other way, your argument would have stated that they voted no. Were they in a superposition before the results came in, voting both yes and no simultaneously?! We can't know what they want if they don't or can't vote. Putting "they voted yes" in their mouth sounds insulting to me, but I'm an outsider to the UK so maybe it's wrong…

You summed up my point. If someone doesn't vote if they can they support what ever the majority of the votes wanted. They were fine with it. So in they end they wanted what the majority wanted because that is the result. Everything else is fudging the numbers to feel better. You could also just say they didn't exist if it makes you feel better. But calculating the percentage from the eligible voters gets you no where…

If someone asks me about macroeconomic decisions and I don't feel like I can make a choice that sufficiently oversees the consequences and so I vote blank, I don't necessarily want to be thought of as having supported whatever ended up happening though

But I can see what you mean here. Just that I'd phrase it as "you will just have to live with the outcome" and not "you voted for this outcome" or "52% of the population wanted this" as it was phrased above. That is what I'd call fudging numbers to sound better than they were :p

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#368

Post by flossly »

triceratops wrote: post #154
flossly wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out. This is the ultimate test of a democracy, imho, that you can leave it democratically (by vote and not by force). We've seen some interesting cases of this, in Spain and in the Donbas of the last years. I think the outcome of people voting against it is a great outcome. You have the freedom. You paid for the vote (its expensive) and "they" did not win…

> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out "Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.

While certainly true, it does not fix the problem (but makes it worse): if the govt does not allow you to self govern and/or break-off, and therefor people that do not like the govt "vote with their feet" and leave, there will be less people left to effect the changes.

This happened in ww2 Germany. many left. Hitler never got 51% of votes. Yet he managed to take over.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#369

Post by conorcleary »

ben_w wrote: post #324
PowerElectronix wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like having to belong to a higher imposed authority (either the original country or the seceded territory) is bad for the individual that doesn't want any of that. If only there was a solution to that problem...

> If only there was a solution to that problem... Sure, but as one who has done it, moving country is surprisingly hard.

try moving TO another country instead of trying to move the country. Scales easier.

Re: Alberta to hold referendum on whether to remain in Canada

#370

Post by conorcleary »

scrubs wrote: post #350
gamblor956 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is legally viable. Canada passed a law allowing this after Quebec tried to secede. It lays out the procedures for how the separation would occur.

Ah i forgot that.. that was dumb on fed Canada's part

nah, makes the treasonous stand in the spotlight and claim their prize.
Post reply on HN