Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

North American Union

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:07:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is a thread designed to head off the eventual rampant discussions about the North American Union (NAU) on this thread: http://www.debate.org..., which I guarantee will kick off whenever Geo logs in next.

Anyways, we're all aware of what the NAU is - an idea floated around about the joining of Canada, the US, and Mexico, into a European Union-ish type of organization, or some sort of mega-dictatorship, depending on who you talk to.

Personally, I find the idea that there is an idea about it credible, but definitely no implimentation. It is too politically stupid to suggest such a thing in any place other than Mexico. It is completely unfeasible as well, given the stances, the laws, and the ideals present in all three countries. It would never fly.

However, this isn't about me: what are your thoughts on this "concept." Is it possible, already done, feasible, how could it be done, etc.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:21:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Liberals and Greens would variously want us to join a Europe-dominated strengthened UN stick with the status quo. Conservatives and libertarians are largely in favor of either world domination or one form or another of isolationism. No other ideologies all that different from those listed above have even remote future prospects in the US or Canada. So next to no motive to cause it exists.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:22:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
UN or stick with the status quo
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:25:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Incidentally, I'm not sure even Mexico wants it.Where's the sauce on that? Sure, it'd help their economy, but at great cost to machismo no?
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:28:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, I think that it's certainly a possibility; however, I don't think that the current political climate will allow it. If, hypothetically, I were going to create a situation which was conducive to the establishment of the NAU, I would have a few things on my to-do list:

1. Mimic Canada

I agree with Volkov that one of the main obstacles to establishing the NAU is ideological differences; however, with the "passage" of Health Care legislation, we've taken one step closer to mimicking Canada. If you look at Europe, a lot of national values and beliefs are supranational - they don't stop at the border and turn back. To make such a union feasible, we have to move toward a far more "liberal" state, so that we might become better buddies with our northern neighbors.

2. Cripple Mexico

I understand that Mexico, as-is, is shaky; however, the country must be crippled altogether to make it susceptible to persuasion, such that it might be inclined to join the NAU, if only for the sake of survival. Its two neighbors to the north, Canada and the United States (now very similar in terms of ideology and social values), offer to take care of Mexico, provided that it submits itself to the jurisdiction of a central governing body; the bottom line is, that country needs to be knocked off its feet entirely. Whether this happens socially or economically isn't important. One milestone will have to pass along the way, though......

----------2a. Open Borders

The borders that we share with Canada are fairly free and open as it stands. For a cohesive union to be possible, the same conditions must exist between the United States and Mexico; this may be a bit of a problem, as the culture shock experienced by some (due to the large influx of illegal immigrants) prevents a large number of American citizens from wanting anything to do with Mexico, much less join them in a continental union.

3. Currency Crisis

For a while there, the dollar wasn't particularly powerful; however, the recession clearing up creates a few economic barriers where the NAU is concerned, chiefly the problem of obligating the use of a transnational currency, the Amero. Much like the collapse of Mexico, the economies of both the United States and Canada are going to have to tank - the U.S. to weaken global trust in the dollar even further, and to force economic change in the US, and Canada simply to get them to go along with the idea of a North American currency.

These ideas are all very fuzzy right now, but these are some of the things that I would work toward if I were part of a massive global conspiracy to establish a one-world government.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:31:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A clarification on 2a, by the way:

This is a necessary step because a continental union makes borders more of a formality; by having the same sort of freedom with Mexico that we have with Canada, the borders would still clearly exist, but there wouldn't be any legal significance to them, beyond the scope of definition national "boundaries", so to speak.

There would be borders, but there really wouldn't be borders. It sounds self-contradictory, but you understand my meaning, I hope.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:37:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 9:31:25 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
A clarification on 2a, by the way:

This is a necessary step because a continental union makes borders more of a formality; by having the same sort of freedom with Mexico that we have with Canada, the borders would still clearly exist, but there wouldn't be any legal significance to them, beyond the scope of defining national "boundaries", so to speak.

There would be borders, but there really wouldn't be borders. It sounds self-contradictory, but you understand my meaning, I hope.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:50:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 9:28:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. Mimic Canada

I agree with Volkov that one of the main obstacles to establishing the NAU is ideological differences; however, with the "passage" of Health Care legislation, we've taken one step closer to mimicking Canada. If you look at Europe, a lot of national values and beliefs are supranational - they don't stop at the border and turn back. To make such a union feasible, we have to move toward a far more "liberal" state, so that we might become better buddies with our northern neighbors.

While I appreciate the deference to our great country, I have to disagree with some points here.

The reason the EU works as well as it does is honestly because it has so many differences within its umbrella. The various laws and ideologies and systems in most EU countries do generally differ, as you do find things will end at the borders.

That is where the EU comes in. In the ideal of continued stability within their continent, the EU is designed to be a consensus-based authority that Europeans can appeal to for a form of united direction on issues. It isn't designed to integrate every single European state into another, but to provide supra-national structure to deal with differences.

If this need for some sort of united conscience were not needed, then the EU would not exist. If all European countries were the same, then they would find it very easy to work together, and we know that they don't. And if the NAU were to be based on the EU, then there isn't a need for "mimicing."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 9:58:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's so significant about the ideological differences between European countries? Frankly, they seem from where I'm looking less significant than the difference between Alabama and Hawaii.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:04:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 9:58:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's so significant about the ideological differences between European countries? Frankly, they seem from where I'm looking less significant than the difference between Alabama and Hawaii.

Thats because all you see is socialists.

Without mentioning the various historical, linguistic and familial differences in Europe that seem to plague the continent, they do tend to vary quite a bit, although maybe not too far off of a leftist mark. The main differences lie in political structure, economic policy (I know, I know, socialists), and even healthcare implementation. Like, there is a big difference between France's and Britain's healthcare systems; while both are universal, France allows for a lot more private commercial systems to set up and run in a rather curious private-public meld, while in Britain, its almost adamently opposed.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:16:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 10:04:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/6/2010 9:58:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What's so significant about the ideological differences between European countries? Frankly, they seem from where I'm looking less significant than the difference between Alabama and Hawaii.

Thats because all you see is socialists.

Without mentioning the various historical, linguistic and familial differences in Europe that seem to plague the continent
Tribe=/= ideology. Ideology enables giving a crap about tribe, but ideologies do not have to differ to have a tribal conflict.

they do tend to vary quite a bit, although maybe not too far off of a leftist mark.
Not too far is key to my statement. Even the so-called "libertarian" parties in Europe would be pretty solid Democrats in America, except maybe on immigration policy.

The main differences lie in political structure, economic policy (I know, I know, socialists), and even healthcare implementation. Like, there is a big difference between France's and Britain's healthcare systems; while both are universal, France allows for a lot more private commercial systems to set up and run in a rather curious private-public meld, while in Britain, its almost adamently opposed.
The health care systems stateside vary more. Some provide UHC, some don't. All accept state intervention, but that's also true in Europe, and unlike in Europe, a significant number of people who accept such intervention don't even realize what they're accepting, and think of themselves as free market conservatives (See: The little old lady who shouted at a senator: "Keep the government out of my Medicare!)

Some US states have publicly run utilities, some tight regulations on nominally private, some very loose. I'm sure you'll find one and two widespread in Europe, but 3? Probably not much.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:26:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 10:16:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/6/2010 10:04:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
Tribe=/= ideology. Ideology enables giving a crap about tribe, but ideologies do not have to differ to have a tribal conflict.

Thats why I said, "without mentioning"....

Not too far is key to my statement. Even the so-called "libertarian" parties in Europe would be pretty solid Democrats in America, except maybe on immigration policy.

Even so, these micro-differences still reap fissures among people. The Soviets were broken up into something like sixteen different "communist parties" before Lenin's faction eventually wiped them all out, yet they were all essentially saying the same things, just with different ideas about how to go about it, and probably the smallest differences possible in policies. Its stupid, but its politics. You'd be surprised at how much Labour hates the Conservatives, and vice versa, while both are essentially the same.

The health care systems stateside vary more. Some provide UHC, some don't. All accept state intervention, but that's also true in Europe, and unlike in Europe, a significant number of people who accept such intervention don't even realize what they're accepting, and think of themselves as free market conservatives (See: The little old lady who shouted at a senator: "Keep the government out of my Medicare!)

Some US states have publicly run utilities, some tight regulations on nominally private, some very loose. I'm sure you'll find one and two widespread in Europe, but 3? Probably not much.

Well, you might be right. I don't care to look into it though, because I have a feeling it will give me a headache. However, it does make me curious about EU healthcare plans. I've never seen MEPs talk about healthcare. I don't even know if the EU bothers with it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:44:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not too far is key to my statement. Even the so-called "libertarian" parties in Europe would be pretty solid Democrats in America, except maybe on immigration policy.

Even so, these micro-differences still reap fissures among people.
Apparently not a wide enough fissure to make the idea of a European union as shocking as an NAU.

Well, you might be right. I don't care to look into it though, because I have a feeling it will give me a headache. However, it does make me curious about EU healthcare plans. I've never seen MEPs talk about healthcare. I don't even know if the EU bothers with it.
http://ec.europa.eu...

I don't tend to gather information from watching legislators of various forms talk. It's not very efficient. Lol. Now discussing things with politically active citizens from various parts of the world, on this and sometimes other sites, that's a bit more efficient because they don't have to name drop campaign contributors or watch themselves for gaffes all the time.

Of course, it has a bias for only the English speaking ones, but-- they frequently speak other languages in addition to English and somewhat gather what the non English speakers think.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 10:49:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 10:44:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Apparently not a wide enough fissure to make the idea of a European union as shocking as an NAU.

Fair enough.

http://ec.europa.eu...

I don't tend to gather information from watching legislators of various forms talk. It's not very efficient. Lol. Now discussing things with politically active citizens from various parts of the world, on this and sometimes other sites, that's a bit more efficient because they don't have to name drop campaign contributors or watch themselves for gaffes all the time.

Of course, it has a bias for only the English speaking ones, but-- they frequently speak other languages in addition to English and somewhat gather what the non English speakers think.

Efficient or not, legislators are my favourite form of entertainment. I know, it sounds sad, but I've yet to get to a strip club, so until then, it stands.

Anyways, thanks for the link.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2010 12:57:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Watch courts instead of legislators. Then you can be like this guy:

http://www.theonion.com...
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.