BlizzForums

BlizzForums (http://www.blizzforums.com/index.php)
-   Serious Discussion (http://www.blizzforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   North American Union (http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=19852)

The Hawaiian 08-19-2008 05:12 PM

North American Union
 
Are you guys open to this idea or closed to it? Personally I think it would be a good thing for us all to have one currency and some standardization in trade. Although I disagree with the NAFTA superhighway because I don't think the government should be building more roads, I agree with other ideas such as allowing Mexicans into the already-dead Social Security system, perhaps they could save it.

Chaos 08-19-2008 05:14 PM

I say no because that's the same thing Europe did. It's the first step on the road to political unity and as we have seen from the example Europe has provided for us that doesn't do much but waste taxpayer money.

Europe could have created a single currency and their open borders for European citizens thing without creating a huge bureaucracy in Brussels and causing unnecessary political tension all over the Continent. But when you do something like the former it's impossible to avoid the latter because politicians are inevitably going to say "we need a bureaucracy to handle this!"

Like the European Parliament, what the hell does it do besides soak up taxpayer money? Nothing.

Lackey 08-19-2008 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald Rumsfeld (Post 440195)
AI agree with other ideas such as allowing Mexicans into the already-dead Social Security system, perhaps they could save it.

How do you propose to save a system by burdening if further? Unless there is a disproportionate amount of working Mexicans as opposed to retired, I see nothing that would "save" the system. Let's forget for a moment that it doesn't matter how many are contributing because eventually, it will fail. It's only a matter of how long we continue to throw money at the problem.

Kaizen 08-19-2008 06:01 PM

The whole statist system is survived by the fact populations must keep growing to be able to service the debt burden. Which is in distinct opposition to the natural population decreases that come with developed economies. Alas, always trying to defy gravity it seems.

DaDaimon 08-19-2008 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos (Post 440198)
I say no because that's the same thing Europe did. It's the first step on the road to political unity and as we have seen from the example Europe has provided for us that doesn't do much but waste taxpayer money.

Europe could have created a single currency and their open borders for European citizens thing without creating a huge bureaucracy in Brussels and causing unnecessary political tension all over the Continent. But when you do something like the former it's impossible to avoid the latter because politicians are inevitably going to say "we need a bureaucracy to handle this!"

Like the European Parliament, what the hell does it do besides soak up taxpayer money? Nothing.

Not exactly the problem with the four freedoms of the European Union is that they require a huge bureaucracy, because of the many restrictions that were and are still in place in the member states. It's a complex legal code that needs to be unified. Regulations that have to be lifted to a European level.

An example of this is: What constitutes a banana? Almost every country has rules on importing and exporting of goods. To execute those laws, the goods have to be defined.

It the case of the European Union those laws have to be harmonized, that's why the European Parlement had a discussion on what the curvature of a banana needed to be to be seen as a banana.

So as you see the problem is no the union itself it is the humongous bureaucracies of the states themselves that require the creation of such a bureaucracy. A north american union wouldn't be too different, though easier to do because you only would have 3 memberstates.

Lackey 08-19-2008 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaizen (Post 440279)
The whole statist system is survived by the fact populations must keep growing to be able to service the debt burden. Which is in distinct opposition to the natural population decreases that come with developed economies. Alas, always trying to defy gravity it seems.

Even if we were to continue to expand, the statistics defy logic. The productive citizens in society are measuring their birth rates while the unproductive slothful populace churns out children at an unregulated rate. These unproductive citizens are more likely to draw early social security and disability (farmed out from Social Security funding.) Add to that a longer life expectancy and you have a system that is designed to fail.

The only solution is to amputate the leg and cut off Social Security at a fair age, say 30. Remove the entitlement expectancy and people will either save for their retirement or they will work until their death, both options are far better than the status-quo.

Drakain Zeil 08-19-2008 10:47 PM

No.
I believe we should be breaking into smaller nations.

We need smaller groups of people who can all agree on something, rather than larger groups of people within which we have smaller groups of people that disagree too greatly on the same thing. We all get along dandy, it's when someone else tells us to live their way that we don't. Our empires are much too large. To avoid a total collapse of things within the next 500 years and maintain our ideals, the national governments should fade away and give control to their provinces/states/regions, and let the locals say how they want to live locally. Rather than the people in Ottawa decide how to live in Washington.

The governments are too deep into things they shouldn't be... taxing you for making money this way... you bought something special so you're taxed more... We have the ability but are incapable of managing our nations with any efficiency. Let the locals live how they want. We don't need a global government to tell us. 51% stomps on the 49% because they disagree. Rather than giving 51% what they want, and 49% what they want. Things are too big, and why? For more control? We don't need kings. We need people.

Things are simply "too big" to fight the battles that need to be fought. Having a voice in the country leader's head is hard. Even if you get your way, hundreds of millions will be upset with you. Having a voice in your municipality isn't nearly as big of a challenge. Things are manageable. Things can change easier. The locals will decide what they want locally.

Why would we want a NAU? So canada, mexico and the usa can all fight against each other and get less accomplished as each looks out for it's own people?

Government has become a way to id-tag and control the masses, rather than a central instution that's actions reflect the wishes of the people. a NAU, EU, and AU will bring us further into a "boot-on-my-face-forever" future as they form a mismanaged NWO without scruples. This is because we haven't corrected any of the problems we have with our governments, and basically are saying "lets make them more powerful."

The Hawaiian 08-19-2008 10:50 PM

I like that idea Drakain Zeil, I think the states should be given more autonomy and the federal government should be concerned primarily with protection of national borders and solving inter-state disputes.

Drakain Zeil 08-19-2008 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald Rumsfeld (Post 440440)
I like that idea Drakain Zeil, I think the states should be given more autonomy and the federal government should be concerned primarily with protection of national borders and solving inter-state disputes.

I've updated it to clear up some of my ideas. I'm sure people disagree and will call me a loon for saying we should divide and be conquered. But really, we're a super massive goliatih waiting for some kid with a sling to make us fall. We need a rebuild at the foundation before we can come back together.

Meteora 08-19-2008 11:33 PM

Drakain Zeil's idea intrigues me, because I agree on some issues. For one, at this moment I am not too pleased with the national government and do not agree with many issues. On provincial level I find myself agreeing to many proposals and ideas that would benefit the province as a whole and meeting the needs of the residents residing in the province.

For a North American Union, it wouldn't work all that well. I'm not too sure how successful the Euroepan Union has been, but in my opinion it doesn't work out. Not sure why I'm reluctant to show support for this, but that's what my instincts tell me. I suppose a NAU would lump us altogether more as "North Americans" like EU does with "Europeans" rather than nationality. *shrugs*

Chaos 08-20-2008 01:54 AM

Yeah guess what there's a reason the founding fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation: they sucked.

And if anyone tried "dividing" the United States there are more than enough damnyankees around to show Johnny Reb who the fuck is boss. We already beat that nonsense out of the country once don't think we won't do it again.

Quote:

We need smaller groups of people who can all agree on something, rather than larger groups of people within which we have smaller groups of people that disagree too greatly on the same thing. We all get along dandy, it's when someone else tells us to live their way that we don't. Our empires are much too large. To avoid a total collapse of things within the next 500 years and maintain our ideals, the national governments should fade away and give control to their provinces/states/regions, and let the locals say how they want to live locally. Rather than the people in Ottawa decide how to live in Washington.
I don't see any reason to believe that political disagreements in the United States threaten the peace, stability or prosperity of the country. We already have a fine system of federalism here in the United States that works pretty damn good.

It's funny kind of to see how history repeats itself with minor variations. Your thinking falls into the same trap as did the First International in 1914: you underestimate the power of nationalism.

MattII 08-20-2008 03:17 AM

Not even on the same continent, but I'd say no right off the bat, you've got enough problems with drugs and unemployment already no need to make them bigger. A union of the USA and Canada might work better, both sides speak English and have similar cultures (I'm assuming) and currencies. You might have to shift the capital though, to New York maybe, or Milwaukee.

Golgo 13 08-20-2008 07:10 AM

The biggest benefit of a NAU is that we could drown our debt over 3 nations instead of shouldering the burden ourselves.

Also if we devalued the dollar into worthlessness before switching over to the Amero, then national debt would be a trivial affair to pay off due to the conversion rate.

After that, we'd have 3 nations worth of economic power to play the inflationary game with all over again.

DaDaimon 08-20-2008 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattII (Post 440583)
You might have to shift the capital though, to New York maybe, or Milwaukee.

You consider shifting the capital a relevant point for the feasibility of such a project?

Drakain Zeil 08-20-2008 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos (Post 440533)
I don't see any reason to believe that political disagreements in the United States threaten the peace, stability or prosperity of the country. We already have a fine system of federalism here in the United States that works pretty damn good.

It's funny kind of to see how history repeats itself with minor variations. Your thinking falls into the same trap as did the First International in 1914: you underestimate the power of nationalism.

It just means the 49% of people don't get what they want-- and that's a hell of a lot of people. The systems are awful, no one gets heard, corruption is disgusting, personal ego and ambitions of politicians trump what the peasantry wants. A portion even smaller than 49% of the people are truly involved in the democratic process (filling out a leadership vote is the democratic equivalent of sticking a feather in your cap called macaroni... much more goes on), and of them, why should any politician care what they say?

Why should we have nationalism? We can be like that polish guy we have on the forums who insists everything polish is instantly better, right or wrong. We can have patriot acts too! Nationalism isn't something that should decide future actions, but be something you can look BACK at and say "yeah, we did a good job."

We can still be united in a brotherhood of nations, but that would be more to the degree of mutual protection agreements, trade, and things like that. Not laws against another state.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.