It seems that everyone discussing this issue spends all of their time fuming about enhanced cooperation between our friendly neighbors to the north and south. Rarely are the costs and benefits ever discussed in a rational manner.
A NAU would enable:
- Lower costs of living, as the red tape associated with cross-border trade would be eliminated.
- The elimination of unproductive forex transactions for intra-continental trade.
- A stronger, less volatile currency, benefiting all 3 countries.
- Enhanced international clout and bargaining power, thereby advancing North American interests more effectively.
- An additional layer of separation of political power, and a renew impetus for competence in government.
- More secure borders, as it’s vastly easier to defend the borders of North America as a whole than of the individual countries within North America.
…Among many other benefits.
Now, I understand the anxiety surrounding what may appear to be national integration, but let’s be honest – North America is more politically, ideologically, and ethnically homogeneous than probably any other continent. Removing the arbitrary borders, would you honestly be able to tell where Texas stops and Mexico ends? Or where Washington state stops and British Columbia begins?
What’s more, while any sort of rework to the current political structures means that we must be vigilant of our freedoms and civil liberties, what evidence is there to suggest that a NAU would be any more or less liberal (as regards liberty, not "progressive" or "Democrat") than the power structures such as they currently exist? I think that the citizenry of a government not founded on nationalism would be much more vigilant, and thus we’d be freer; history has shown repeatedly that people are much more willing to endure oppression at the hands of their "countrymen" than by "foreigners."
So then, still mad? Is it not time to have a real debate about such a Union, rather than the shrill conspiracy-mongering that currently dominates the discussion of this issue?
thamsenman!: Presumably, such a union would entail freedom of movement within the continent; thus "illegals" (i.e., Mexicans) would no longer be such. Additionally, and as I said, it’s much easier to secure the borders of North America as a whole than of the individual states; thus, illegal immigration would be sharply reduced.
thor_torkinson: I didn’t "pick this up" anywhere, I wrote it myself. As to living standards, we already have free movement of capital within North America, which means that a Union would do nothing to lower wages; quite to the contrary, integration of regulatory and labor standards would likely raise wages by disallowing corporations from externalizing their costs by moving to Mexico, where such standards are presently lower than in the US and Canada. In short, it would merely improve the efficiency of the system such as it currently exists, raising living standards for all in absolute terms. It’s all gain, no pain.
gamefreak:
- I don’t agree that the size of the government corresponds to the degree of corruption in any meaningful way. Governments in sub-Saharan Africa are a tiny fraction of the size of those in western liberal democracies, but they are vastly more corrupt.
- I would presume that a written constitution would be a part of any such agreement. What it contained would be up to the people as expressed through the democratic process.
- The next logical step would absolutely be a world government, to which many of the same issues and benefits are applicable. In addition to being necessary to deal with global issues, I think such a government is inevitable. Economic integration inexorably leads to political integration. Do you honestly think that in 100 years’ time or more, when humanity is colonizing the solar system, we’ll still have the nation-state model of political organization? Highly doubtful.
- Citing "national sovereignty" as an objection is circular.
Brad:
- Here’s the thing – the NAU doesn’t exist at present. There is the SPP, but that’s merely a diplomatic framework, certainly not a government.
- Anarcho-capitalism, in addition to being completely impractical (How are you going to deal with global climate change? Would private citizens be allowed to own nuclear arsenals, and if not, who would stop them?, etc.), sounds to me to be the worst possible form of totalitarianism. Not that it will ever happen; laissez-faire always leads to fascism, not anarchy, as business interests always seek to use their economic power to leverage political power if left unchecked by government and/or organized labor.
- I agree that the majority should not get to vote on the rights of the minority, though I would disagree with you as far as property ownership being an inalienable right.
I think this because such a union does not fit the myth of the american dream, that of unrestricted freedom and wealth, regardless of social class. America is the best country in the world, so how could a union improve it?
In every discussion on government here on Y-A, but also in the media, Americans (yup, i i generalize, sorry) try to retain this paradoxical position. On the one hand there are the the civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and freedom of carying guns, for which the US are unique, and on the other hand, the vehicle of these rights, the state ad its government are a deathly threat to it. Apparently, americans see some other source that wards off violence and anarchism. Often, civil liberties are treated as physical laws, undeniable truths, or worse, something that is "ingrained" in the american people. (as if there are people who intrinsically can handle freedom, and others, who cannot)
In reality, one’s own freedom is anothers prison. for an optimum division of liberity, a balance between restrictions and freedoms must be found. The state, is what ever form, can attain and maintain this balance. Moreover, freedom is not only the doing-what-want-and whatever-you-can is only one dimesion of freedom. Acces to resources, people or knowledge is just as important as the right to decide what to do with them. A democratic government can serve as a forum for active, continuous redifinition of that goal of the state, freedom.
But the myth of state-free cowboy-freedom seems so ingrained in american culture that any attempt at discussing freedom seen as commie bullsh*t ad. It think this lack of widespread debate on what freedom is, has barred the road to reformulating american ideals on freedom and civil duty. It has lead to a debilitating form of democracy, and the last one was not an exception. (no offense, really)
I don’t think the past US government was serving the goal of providing optimal freedom for its citizens, let alone having an active debate on what freedom really is, but the NAU definitatly stands for a reformulating of those freedoms, and possibly for the worst. The state and its government (whether US or NAU) is seen as the enemy of personal freedom, and because of this, it can not become an effective tool to bring about personal freedom, or serve as a forum for public debate on freedom.
powered by Yahoo Answers
