276
submitted 2 weeks ago by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago

I dunno. Sometimes I get the feeling they'd secede and join us if we asked. Hawaii too, if PR or Samoa came first.

I mean, Alaska had a Basic Income scheme. It's surprisingly progressive given our own impression of our own snowy North.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Many natives of Hawaii consider their kingdom to be illegally occupied by the USA, and I don't suppose they would be especially happy about trading the USA for a new colonialist occupier. The Kingdom of Hawaii was a marvel of the world and deserves to exist again.

hat tip to Silver Spook

[-] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Queen Liliuokalani deserves to have her name heard. And the US and the Dole Corporation both owe Hawaiians their sovereignty back.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 weeks ago
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

When the great and powerful democracy of the United States of God or whatever the fuck your despot wants the world to call it this week cannot even match the quality of life previously provided by a small tribal kingdom, Americans forfeit the right to an opinion on the matter.

[-] GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

American here. Fucking true, brother. You tell 'em!

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not an American...

I'm also simply saying that ANY kingdom is bad. If you come up with whatever reason like "but muh king is the best!" It's still bad. It's still a kingdom meaning that rights are restricted.

I want another leader? Well, too bad, it's not a democracy.

I want to publicly disagree with the leader? Maybe this king allows it. Will their offspring allow it too? No guarantees

I want to publicly criticize the dear king, or maybe insult him?

Do I really need to explain this? The Netherlands still has a king but he has zero power and is purely symbolic. That would be fine if they weren't so fucking expensive.

If you have a king with absolute power them you're screwed one way or the other, today or tomorrow, but it will go badly

[-] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

There are good kingdoms in the world.

See the Kingdom of Bhutan.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Great .

What if the current king dies?

Also, what is "good" here? Can I insult the king? Can I criticize the king? Can I object to decisions from the king? Do I have the freedom to protest?

That's the thing about democracies, if done right they can always have good leadership.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Canada ain't all that bad.

[-] bowreality@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

I would take Hawaii over Alaska. We got snow ourselves.

[-] BinzyBoi@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Tell that to Dan Sullivan.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago

I think Canada's gun control laws would be one of the biggest factors preventing Alaska joining. Many people depend on their guns there for hunting, defense against wildlife for themselves or their animals, and for self defense. Many people live remotely where police response times may not be fast enough to respond to a violent situation.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

As though Canada doesn't have anything as remote as Alaska... People living in Labrador or Churchill have exactly the same needs.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

And many of those people hate Canada's gun laws. The guy i work with from kapuskasing would gladly have Canada become the 51st state if it meant he could have more guns.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

So? It demonstrates that, contrary to your assertion that people depend on American gun laws, it is perfectly possible to exist in these situations with Canada's gun laws. I get that people have an emotional dependency on guns, but that's not an actual necessity.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

All I claimed was that alaskans would have a hard time giving up their guns to join Canada. I never claimed it was impossible to live rurally without a gun.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Why would they have to give up guns, we have guns in Canada

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Canada had significantly different gun laws and most of their current guns or accessories may be illegal depending on magazine capacity, barrel length, or specific model.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Fair, but that's an easy fix. Like a shotgun holds 5 shells but in Canada you can only have 3 in it, so you load a plug. Change your magazine. Etc. Doesn't mean you give up everything, and on the flip side you get healthcare

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

We have guns in Canada. I went hunting with my dad, there is a certain distance from the city you need to be for firing a gun. Those in more remote areas of Canada have guns for all the things you stated. My neighbour in our city, has about 8 guns; hand guns, long guns. People think Canada doesn't have guns because we don't flaunt them as our lifestyle.

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
276 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

9641 readers
1184 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS