Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

North American Union

Robert_Santurri
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 5:14:58 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/24/2008 5:09:54 PM, JBlake wrote:
What does the debate.org community think of a North American Union?

Bad idea, simply a stepping stone to a world gov't.

Eventually if planned it will be the EU, North America Union, Asia Union, and one for the Middle East.
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-- Edward R. Murrow

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- Robert Frost
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 5:18:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Yes, I realize many people think that a NAU would be an awful idea. I'd like to hear some reasons why most people seem to feel that way. The same for a One World government. Not that I am advocating any of these things - I just haven't heard any real argument as to why it would be so bad.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 5:26:14 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
We are statist enough without adding the Canadians and Mexicans to our voter rolls.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 6:52:45 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/24/2008 5:26:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We are statist enough without adding the Canadians and Mexicans to our voter rolls.

Agreed fully.

Also see 1984
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 7:08:12 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/24/2008 5:26:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We are statist enough without adding the Canadians and Mexicans to our voter rolls.

But is that the way that it would necessarily turn out? Why do you feel that way?

At 10/24/2008 6:52:45 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
Agreed fully.

Also see 1984

Nineteen Eighty-four is a hypothetical scenario. Would it not be possible for these larger states to function without such extreme surveilence or statism? Even if it were a gradual process?

Would anyone accept a debate on this topic?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2008 9:17:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/24/2008 7:08:12 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/24/2008 5:26:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We are statist enough without adding the Canadians and Mexicans to our voter rolls.

But is that the way that it would necessarily turn out? Why do you feel that way?

I wasn't speaking of large states in general, mind. Canada and Mexico both have highly statist electorates, Mexico in the form of classical state-granted monopolies in most industries, Canada in the more modern form of high taxes and an uberextensive welfare state. If they were about even with us, the transaction costs of a larger state would make it harder to suppress liberties as a practical matter, but since they are not, since they are so far much more oppressive, that general effect is far outweighed by their specific policy goals. If there were no United States in between, I would certainly advocate that Mexico and Canada join up, by treaty or conquest, but that is not the case :D.

Would anyone accept a debate on this topic?

I can't see why not
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 5:29:51 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
You can't include Canada, it's a part of the British Commonwealth. That is unless the US sees the error of its ways and agrees to come back into the fold and have the Queen's head on its currency and stamps!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 8:45:23 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 5:29:51 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
You can't include Canada, it's a part of the British Commonwealth. That is unless the US sees the error of its ways and agrees to come back into the fold and have the Queen's head on its currency and stamps!

Great idea. Let's call African and India and see if we can get the old band back together.

As for our neighbors to the north, they have been independent and sovereign since the Canada Act and the Constitution Act (both of 1982).
knick-knack
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 10:07:34 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I don't know much about the NAU but I don't want to be all with Mexico or other countries... well maybe Canada would be OK.

But I like Europe if America should do anything it's get in with Europe. Cause Europe will always be strong so the US needs to get on the cool kids team.
John Hancock
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 10:25:02 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
maybe canada would be ok

Yeah I can see us winning some stunning victories with the mounties as our backup.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
knick-knack
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 10:52:20 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 10:25:02 AM, scissorhands7 wrote:
maybe canada would be ok

Yeah I can see us winning some stunning victories with the mounties as our backup.

Well much more than Mexico, and you can't deny that.
John Hancock
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 1:07:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 10:52:20 AM, knick-knack wrote:
At 10/25/2008 10:25:02 AM, scissorhands7 wrote:
maybe canada would be ok

Yeah I can see us winning some stunning victories with the mounties as our backup.

Well much more than Mexico, and you can't deny that.

If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 2:29:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.

I see the benefit for Mexico, I see the benefit for Canada.

I don't see the benefit for the US.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 3:43:54 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 2:29:07 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.

I see the benefit for Mexico, I see the benefit for Canada.

I don't see the benefit for the US.

This may be a valid point, and the reason that a NAU has yet to be seriously considered inside the U.S.

But if we look farther into the future where a Canadian and Mexican regional economy matches that of our own, would that not strengthen our own power in the world market so as to remain competitive with the growth of the EU, China, &ct.?

A strengthened Mexico could also reduce the amount of immigrants from the region into the U.S., could it not? Again, using the EU as an example, hasn't the EU strengthened the position of its stronger member-states as well?

Using your logic, it would be in the interest of the U.S. to cut out some of the less productive states of the union like my own West Virginia.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 4:26:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 3:43:54 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/25/2008 2:29:07 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.

I see the benefit for Mexico, I see the benefit for Canada.

I don't see the benefit for the US.

This may be a valid point, and the reason that a NAU has yet to be seriously considered inside the U.S.

But if we look farther into the future where a Canadian and Mexican regional economy matches that of our own, would that not strengthen our own power in the world market so as to remain competitive with the growth of the EU, China, &ct.?

NAFTA already accomplishes this. Therefore if you are a proponent of adding the economies together so to speak, you are a proponent of NAFTA. Therefore you agree with John McCain on this issue and not Obama. There's no need to combine the countries together politically. Free trade produces all the benefits that the US would miss from not joining these countries into a union.

A strengthened Mexico could also reduce the amount of immigrants from the region into the U.S., could it not? Again, using the EU as an example, hasn't the EU strengthened the position of its stronger member-states as well?

I agree with you. However by "strengthening" Mexico we would be then enforcing higher wages (minimum wage) in Mexico. While this would certainly benefit Mexico and keep many immigrants from coming to the U.S. It would provide a detrimental effect on the price that the average consumer pays at the store.

Cheap Labor = Cheap Goods.

Also Mexican Immigrants are not only immigrating here for the minimum wage but also for the better and cleaner living conditions, the lack of violence, and our law system. Can you imagine how our prisons would fill up by including the entirity of Mexico into our government? Immigrants would come here actually more than less as one might reasonabily think due to the already established laws and cleaniliness (roads, bridges, businesses, etc.) It would take a long time for Mexican society to adapt to the US society.


Using your logic, it would be in the interest of the U.S. to cut out some of the less productive states of the union like my own West Virginia.

It would be of interest in the areas of economics yes, however not for border security, historical reasons, and the fact that cutting out states that have been a part of this union for years would be ridiculous if the reasons were solely economical. Additionally some of the most patriotic members of the US reside in West Virginia. So it doesn't make sense to "Give up" areas we already have so to speak. However it wouldn't make sense to add poor economies to our own.

Additionally the ideals of Canada and Mexico dramatically conflict with many of our own. I'm all for this nation being a melting pot. However if you heat it up to much it just might boil over.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
knick-knack
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 4:29:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 2:29:07 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.

I see the benefit for Mexico, I see the benefit for Canada.

I don't see the benefit for the US.

Yes.

We need to get in with Europe...
They have been and will always be the power house of the world.
John Hancock
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2008 4:35:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/25/2008 4:29:26 PM, knick-knack wrote:
At 10/25/2008 2:29:07 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
If their interest is combined with our interest, all three nations could benefit. Think of how the EU has helped some of its poorer member-states.

I see the benefit for Mexico, I see the benefit for Canada.

I don't see the benefit for the US.

Yes.

We need to get in with Europe...
They have been and will always be the power house of the world.

Psht, doubtful.

Europe is by far one of the most weakest and politically unstable environments I have ever heard of. Also joining with Europe would do what many Americans would hate to do, become involved in many more wars. If you put a representation of the United States anywhere in Europe, I guarantee you we'd have a hugely higher risk of border invasion and terrorism plots. Not to mention that the socialist economies are faring much worse than ours in this economic crisis due to their lack of centralization and inability to act quickly.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2008 8:41:36 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Okay, I think many people are misundestanding the idea. The idea is to create a very loose confederation of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Member states would increase trade with each other, using tools to make trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico dirt cheap. It would also create an open border in between all three nations, an action that has benefited many countries that have done this by providing a free flow of labor. And most importantly it would allow the three governments to work in unison to address regional problems such as Mexican drug cartels that affect the US and Canada as well, and the threat of China, which harms us with an imbalance of trade, and Mexico and Canada as a competing trade partner.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2008 9:00:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/26/2008 8:41:36 AM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:: Okay, I think many people are misundestanding the idea. The idea is to create a very loose confederation of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Member states would increase trade with each other, using tools to make trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico dirt cheap. It would also create an open border in between all three nations, an action that has benefited many countries that have done this by providing a free flow of labor. And most importantly it would allow the three governments to work in unison to address regional problems such as Mexican drug cartels that affect the US and Canada as well, and the threat of China, which harms us with an imbalance of trade, and Mexico and Canada as a competing trade partner.
No I understand the idea, it just doesn't make any sense.
Where would the US benefit?

Free trade is already occuring, its called NAFTA. The only difference are the open borders. Which in no way would benefit the US. So I say boo to NAU.

Trade is already dirt cheap.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2012 1:10:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Daaaayyyyyum, the Anarchists used to dominate this site.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-