Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Nov '10 13:12
    We're all familiar with the American "holy trinity" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 on principles of "peace, order and good government". To what extent do these visions differ from each other? Or are they overlapping / complementary?

    (It's worth noting to start with that POGG was intent to define the limits of legislation by statute).
  2. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    24 Nov '10 13:14
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    We're all familiar with the American "holy trinity" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 on principles of "peace, order and good government". To what extent do these visions differ from each other? Or are they overlapping / complementary?

    (It's worth noting to start with that POGG was intent to define the limits of legislation by statute).
    You can have peace, order and good gummint in jail.
  3. 24 Nov '10 13:41
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    You can have peace, order and good gummint in jail.
    Which suggests that peace, order and good government don't in themselves guarantee freedom. But perhaps you can't have meaningful freedom in the absence of at least a degree of peace, order and good government.
  4. 24 Nov '10 19:17
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    We're all familiar with the American "holy trinity" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 on principles of "peace, order and good government". To what extent do these visions differ from each other? Or are they overlapping / complementary?

    (It's worth noting to start with that POGG was intent to define the limits of legislation by statute).
    In my opinion, "peace, order, and good government" sounds much more attractive than the principles of the american trinity. Equally, I have found Brazil's motto of "order and progress" to be just as euphonious.
  5. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    24 Nov '10 20:28
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    We're all familiar with the American "holy trinity" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 on principles of "peace, order and good government". To what extent do these visions differ from each other? Or are they overlapping / complementary?

    (It's worth noting to start with that POGG was intent to define the limits of legislation by statute).
    I think they are generally complementary, (but it was Canada that walked away with 2 Gold medals in Hockey!)
  6. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    24 Nov '10 21:00
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    We're all familiar with the American "holy trinity" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 on principles of "peace, order and good government". To what extent do these visions differ from each other? Or are they overlapping / complementary?

    (It's worth noting to start with that POGG was intent to define the limits of legislation by statute).
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness reinforce the importance of the individual: "I live. I am free. I pursue happiness."

    Peace, order, and good government reinforce the importance of the social group: "We have peace. We have order. We have good government."
  7. 24 Nov '10 21:05
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness reinforce the importance of the individual: "I live. I am free. I pursue happiness."

    Peace, order, and good government reinforce the importance of the social group: "We have peace. We have order. We have good government."
    Are we a band of individuals all running amok -- or are we an individual band all marching in lockstep?
  8. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    24 Nov '10 21:43
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Are we a band of individuals all running amok -- or are we an individual band all marching in lockstep?
    It's funny for all that America was founded on very individualistic ideas -- how rapidly one can suddenly find everyone pulling together in a single direction.

    It can happen quite quickly under the right leader.
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    24 Nov '10 21:45
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Are we a band of individuals all running amok -- or are we an individual band all marching in lockstep?
    As far as I can tell individualism is nothing but the proverbial carrot dangling in front of the American donkey.

    But hey, I don't work 60 hours a week, have 2 jobs and have small print in my health insurance policy exempting me from long term treatments.
  10. 24 Nov '10 23:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness reinforce the importance of the individual: "I live. I am free. I pursue happiness."

    Peace, order, and good government reinforce the importance of the social group: "We have peace. We have order. We have good government."
    Nice distinction, but I think it's worth stressing, as I tried to do in the original post, that the Canadian motto is intended to set limits on the power of the state, to identify and delimit the role of the federal government in relation to the provinces.

    http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/pogg.html

    Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that "It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures..." As Professor Lysyk points out, the power conferred to the Parliament is not a sweeping power to legislate in relation to peace, order and good government. The power contained in the opening paragraph of s. 91 is only to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Canada in matters not exclusively assigned to the provinces.

    In other words, this is a limited government clause and one which delegates quite considerable powers from the federal authorities to the separate provinces.
  11. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    26 Nov '10 08:29
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    Nice distinction, but I think it's worth stressing, as I tried to do in the original post, that the Canadian motto is intended to set limits on the power of the state, to identify and delimit the role of the federal government in relation to the provinces.

    http://www.uottawa.ca/constitutional-law/pogg.html

    [i]Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 ...[text shortened]... h delegates quite considerable powers from the federal authorities to the separate provinces.
    That's the problem with a motto. Invariably, it is taken out of context as Canada's is sometimes by outsiders; evident by the posts previous.

    The pogg points out the limitations on the feds in that any legislation coming out of parliament should limited to those 3 areas.

    It's not a motto, but it is taken as such.