As any movement with deep roots in Alberta should be, Western independence is considered a conservative one. Yet, it’s rallying cries for a fair deal (or else) are made to the backdrop of keeping “our money” out of the equalization pool or getting “our resources” to market. While Western alienation is a growing problem, the validity of independence as the solution is weakened by this implicit collectivist bent. Seizing power and money from Ottawa for the sake of concentrating it with an all-powerful independent Western government is redundant. .However, there is a strong libertarian case for independence which is best articulated by Murray Rothbard in a 1977 editorial where he supported Quebec’s sovereignty: “It means a giant central state has been broken up into constituent parts; it means greater competition between governments or different geographical areas. . . it exalts that mighty libertarian principle of secession, which we hope to extend on down from the region to the city to the block to the individual.” A process called radical decentralization. .Western independence is not an opportunity to better fund – through public means – schools and hospitals in Alberta or to establish some Western utopia. Inherent in this thinking is the irony of a Western state growing just as – or even more so – oppressive than Ottawa. Western provinces – even conservative ones – already lack the willpower to maintain limited government. This concern is typically met by proposing a strong constitution, bill of rights and sound money which are the three pillars that exalt the ideas of a free and open society – provisions and protections against all threats foreign and domestic. .Although, Canada’s constitution has been globally praised as one of the best, it reads more like a lease agreement on used furniture. Instead, conservatives who favor Western independence seek to channel the founding fathers of the United States to create a document that inspires that glorious history and ceremony associated with a nation winning its independence from tyrannical imperialists..Libertarians – however – look to Lysander Spooner: “But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”.In No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Spooner – who was from Massachusetts – opposed treason charges against secessionists during the American civil war. He advocated natural law in which acts of force against individuals and their property – including taxation – are criminal and immoral. By this reasoning, the constitution – being merely a contract among men – was null, and void given that the state was not protecting those inalienable rights and was – in fact – the antagonist which destroyed them..This was a warning against the ability of such documents to protect persons and property. It was published in 1867 after ninety-one years of experience with the American declaration of independence, and the same year as the founding of the Dominion of Canada but nobody listened. The Canadian constitution has authorized such a government as we have had just as an independent Albertan or Western constitution will be powerless to prevent the same..The relationship between Ottawa and the West is dysfunctional and outdated. Just as conservatives who favor independence recognize the unfair treatment by the constitutional monarchy in Ottawa, libertarians recognize it as inherent to the state itself. An independent West or Alberta is a step in the right direction only if the archaic ideas of imperialist control are completely abandoned and the ability to secede is extended to those who seek independence from an independent West – radical decentralization..To paraphrase Rothbard: If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the West secede from Canada? Alberta from the Dominion? Calgary from the province? Why may not Inglewood secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each person? .Independence is a legitimate option for the West, but only if it does so to end overreaching government, not replicate it.
As any movement with deep roots in Alberta should be, Western independence is considered a conservative one. Yet, it’s rallying cries for a fair deal (or else) are made to the backdrop of keeping “our money” out of the equalization pool or getting “our resources” to market. While Western alienation is a growing problem, the validity of independence as the solution is weakened by this implicit collectivist bent. Seizing power and money from Ottawa for the sake of concentrating it with an all-powerful independent Western government is redundant. .However, there is a strong libertarian case for independence which is best articulated by Murray Rothbard in a 1977 editorial where he supported Quebec’s sovereignty: “It means a giant central state has been broken up into constituent parts; it means greater competition between governments or different geographical areas. . . it exalts that mighty libertarian principle of secession, which we hope to extend on down from the region to the city to the block to the individual.” A process called radical decentralization. .Western independence is not an opportunity to better fund – through public means – schools and hospitals in Alberta or to establish some Western utopia. Inherent in this thinking is the irony of a Western state growing just as – or even more so – oppressive than Ottawa. Western provinces – even conservative ones – already lack the willpower to maintain limited government. This concern is typically met by proposing a strong constitution, bill of rights and sound money which are the three pillars that exalt the ideas of a free and open society – provisions and protections against all threats foreign and domestic. .Although, Canada’s constitution has been globally praised as one of the best, it reads more like a lease agreement on used furniture. Instead, conservatives who favor Western independence seek to channel the founding fathers of the United States to create a document that inspires that glorious history and ceremony associated with a nation winning its independence from tyrannical imperialists..Libertarians – however – look to Lysander Spooner: “But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”.In No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, Spooner – who was from Massachusetts – opposed treason charges against secessionists during the American civil war. He advocated natural law in which acts of force against individuals and their property – including taxation – are criminal and immoral. By this reasoning, the constitution – being merely a contract among men – was null, and void given that the state was not protecting those inalienable rights and was – in fact – the antagonist which destroyed them..This was a warning against the ability of such documents to protect persons and property. It was published in 1867 after ninety-one years of experience with the American declaration of independence, and the same year as the founding of the Dominion of Canada but nobody listened. The Canadian constitution has authorized such a government as we have had just as an independent Albertan or Western constitution will be powerless to prevent the same..The relationship between Ottawa and the West is dysfunctional and outdated. Just as conservatives who favor independence recognize the unfair treatment by the constitutional monarchy in Ottawa, libertarians recognize it as inherent to the state itself. An independent West or Alberta is a step in the right direction only if the archaic ideas of imperialist control are completely abandoned and the ability to secede is extended to those who seek independence from an independent West – radical decentralization..To paraphrase Rothbard: If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the West secede from Canada? Alberta from the Dominion? Calgary from the province? Why may not Inglewood secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each person? .Independence is a legitimate option for the West, but only if it does so to end overreaching government, not replicate it.
