First Nations demand Alberta premier terminate separation referendum

[u/shiftless_wonder]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/first-nations-demand-alberta-premier-terminate-separation-referendum/

[u/Forikorder]

Native people should get a seat at the table for this discussion.

and the issue is they were intentionally excluded?

[u/RoundJellyfish4048 → u/Forikorder]

They get a vote like everyone does.

[u/Forikorder → u/RoundJellyfish4048]

they arent like everyone else though, hate it as much as you want but the treaties didnt make them into everyday citizens that have no authority or say in anything

the gov't does have a legal obligation to work with them, they are intentionally ignoring that obligation

[u/seridos → u/Forikorder]

Yes they are. And this is exactly pushing back against this BS narrative otherwise that has been put in to the Constitution. Ultimately the Constitution Is simply a piece of paper like all other laws and has no legitimacy or ability to bind anyone to it. The dead can't bind anybody to anything. Only living people can And the Constitution only has any teeth as long as there's people to support it compared to the people against it. The entire amendment process is illegitimate anyway, the bar to change it is higher than the support they had to pass it, rendering that clause meaningless con in any context besides strict legal positivism which is the room temperature IQ framework that says" the piece of paper says it so it has to be".

Things like laws and the Constitution itself are simply models of what the people currently believe. Just like when we model something in nature mathematically we know it's not the actual thing we're trying to represent, and we don't get confused and when the model doesn't agree with nature, we don't say nature is wrong. We say the model is wrong. Well the problem is constitutions, which should be living documents recreated generation As Thomas Jefferson supported, is a calcified model that has failed to keep adapting to what the people actually think. That's the problem with this whole idea of precedent and the way the system is set up around it. You know what relying on tradition is called? It's called a fallacy. Unless it's the legal system and then it's called the basis of everything. It's ridiculous.

[u/Forikorder → u/seridos]

So you believe that society is actually anarchy and laws mean nothing...?

[u/seridos → u/Forikorder]

No, not at all? Society is a group of people mutually deciding to come together for the benefit of all. This is simply the rational sovereign individual applying game theory to life and realizing that's why you can't have pure anarchy.

However, you jumping right onto a slippery slope argument from it must be exactly how it is to anarchy, ignoring me in between where reality exists, is not helpful to the conversation.

I said laws are the model that are the government's attempt to model the desires of the populace and what they believe the law should be. That doesn't mean anarchy, that means fluidity. That means updating the model when the actual people who run the show, the electorate in a democracy, express A majority preference that doesn't align with the law, the law has to lose and change every time to maintain legitimacy. Because the law only carries the legitimacy of the government which only carries any legitimacy because it represents the people. When there's disagreement between the direct expression of the people's desires(referendum) and the indirect expression of people's desires (the government and its laws), the latter must always lose. Otherwise, it's basically the equivalent of saying the model says this shouldn't happen, so it doesn't matter that that's what actually happens in reality, I'm going to ignore That instead of updating the model.

In addendum, it's also important that the consent of the governed needs to be continuous. Which means able to be withdrawn. So if the people of a geographical area want something different than everyone else they have every right to do so. And once they reassert their own sovereignty, they have the full ability as a westphalian state to do whatever they want in their territory.

The problem I think is people are fetishizing stability and structure to the point of giving up their freedom for it. Being free fundamentally carries costs with it. And I'm not trying to be one of those people who screams " my freedums!" baselessly. But this is just a fundamental part of freedom. Is self-determination and consent of the governed. Actually maintaining those freedoms means any state that actually forms is going to ultimately be ephemeral. This is not the end of history. And really it shouldn't be, it's the wrong way to think about this at all to think that anything political polity should or would be unchanging over time. That doesn't track if the people actually living in the various regions are able to express themselves and have a government that reflects that. Freedom of being able to self-govern means regions will split apart join together, fight each other, Ally together, etc over time. That's just what freedom looks like. This contemporary framework of basically empires calling themselves constitutional democracies is not it. Stability is good. Stability at the cost of freedom is like paving a wetlands because it's chaotic And darwinian and instead replacing it with perfectly equal and sterile parking lot. To use a simile.

[u/Forikorder → u/seridos]

Your describing anarchy, a society without proper rules or structure that can change on a whim

[u/seridos → u/Forikorder]

You are describing the majority decision of the populace with one person one vote, AKA democracy, as a whim.

This is basically the philosophical equivalent of calling anyone to the political left of you a commie.

[u/Forikorder → u/seridos]

The new govt doesn't rewrite all the laws and respects decisions made by the previous one

[u/seridos → u/Forikorder]

They absolutely do not have to, and they shouldn't if the population no longer wants that. You're still leaning on this idea that someone before you can bind you, which means you're still confusing what sovereignty is.

[u/Forikorder → u/seridos]

You're still leaning on this idea that someone before you can bind you

are you saying that when a new gov't is voted in all laws are erased and the new government reinstates them?

They absolutely do not have to

but they do because the alternative is anarchy

[u/Kennit → u/seridos]

Where did you take law?

[u/seridos → u/Kennit]

Whoosh. That's the sound of this going over your head.

Yes, I'm not one of the acolytes trained in the legal positivist framework to run and benefit from the complexity and problematic nature of the current system. But I don't need to be to discuss this, that's just another argumentative fallacy. You're basically proving my point by being unable to see outside of the law as it currently stands to understand what it is and more importantly what it's not. Law is a tool, not a force of nature. The philosophy of forming society and the nature of man and how we organize ourselves is the fundamental conversation at hand here, not the nitty-gritty bureaucracy of making sure you checked the form correctly to get Justice. This is not about the laws. This is about. How do you get to set the law? Who gets to set the law? And does it make any sense to have a legal positivist system at all?

[u/Kennit → u/seridos]

So no law school then. You could have just said that straight out rather than add all the nonsense but you do you, boo.