A Canada/US merger?

[Shady]

Do you think cities, counties, states, provinces are pointless, too? Do you think everyone has the same ideals? The same priorities? Countries allow a set of people to live by their ideals. Countries assure us that a majority whose ideals we may not agree with cannot take control.

Exactly. I don't think he thought through his point before posting.

[Michael Hardner]

Huh? Of course they are. The border is a legal boundary, wherein our laws apply. Laws passed by OUR government, not another country's government.

But some things are covered by international law, right ? Or regional ? Or local ? At a meta-level, if we agree on the major points does that mean countries wouldn't be needed ?

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think cities, counties, states, provinces are pointless, too? Do you think everyone has the same ideals? The same priorities? Countries allow a set of people to live by their ideals. Countries assure us that a majority whose ideals we may not agree with cannot take control.

No, I don't think those are pointless. I think that we seem to be converging on a shared sense of ideals to a degree. Countries aren't a natural division of humanity, and they don't apply to everyone in the world equally.

[GostHacked]

Can we all just admit, though, that countries are increasingly pointless ? Individual humans should have rights, and the opportunity to prosper... so how do countries help serve that goal ? Corporations don't abide by them, so why should individuals have to ?

Food for thought.

Are you advocating for a ... new world order? Corporate and government = fascism. We can have nation states if we had trusted elected leaders.

The government does not go after the corps like they do individuals. If they did, we would have not seen the type of abuse and corruption that we currently experience.

[eyeball]

Governments and corporations co-exist mostly for their own benefit and national borders provide the shells they use to game the rest of us.

The more relevant unit we all live in is the planet's environment in bio-regions where more natural boundaries that divide us are demarcated by the features of the planet. Nations are often as not also divided more by the natural features of the land than simple lines on maps.

Since most human beings rely on their local ecosystems for their sustenance and livelihoods local autonomy and area-based management should be as robust as possible to ensure local values and ideals are used in their management. Right now everything is managed from distant national centre's according to the values and ideals of the usual suspects.

Edited October 5, 2013 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Are you advocating for a ... new world order? Corporate and government = fascism. We can have nation states if we had trusted elected leaders.

The government does not go after the corps like they do individuals. If they did, we would have not seen the type of abuse and corruption that we currently experience.

Sentences 2 and 3 aren't helpful, just slogans. Also, the government has gone after corporations in the past.

[Michael Hardner]

Governments and corporations co-exist mostly for their own benefit and national borders provide the shells they use to game the rest of us.

The more relevant unit we all live in is the planet's environment in bio-regions where more natural boundaries that divide us are demarcated by the features of the planet. Nations are often as not also divided more by the natural features of the land than simple lines on maps.

Since most human beings rely on their local ecosystems for their sustenance and livelihoods local autonomy and area-based management should be as robust as possible to ensure local values and ideals are used in their management. Right now everything is managed from distant national centre's according to the values and ideals of the usual suspects.

All good points. Local voices, and global standards would be better enforced if money didn't have the option to shop for the lowest standards, and this is still happening today.

[dre]

What are countries for, anyway ?

Trade barriers and security barriers don't really exist so much between Canada and the US.

Why do we have them, again ? I fear that a big reason has something to do with identity, which just doesn't make sense to me.

Its a matter of control and self determination. If we merged with the US we would about 1/10th of its population. We would lose the ability to make our own laws, lost the ability control our own resources, lose the ability to control our trade, our foreign policy our environment, our immigration etc. We would also be submitting ourselves to their disfunctional political system.

I cant think of a good reason for ANY of these things. I CAN see a reason for a strong economic partnership, where we can easily trade with each other, and people and goods can move easily from one country to another. I can see a case for the limited harmonization of some of our laws in cases where we both agree and theres strong public support.

But the very LAST thing we need is some kind of North American Lisbon Treaty.

If anything we need to decentralize political power, and put most of it at the municiple level.

Edited October 5, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Its a matter of control and self determination. If we merged with the US we would about 1/10th of its population. We would lose the ability to make our own laws, lost the ability control our own resources, lose the ability to control our trade, our foreign policy our environment, our immigration etc. We would also be submitting ourselves to their disfunctional political system.

I cant think of a good reason for ANY of these things. I CAN see a reason for a strong economic partnership, where we can easily trade with each other, and people and goods can move easily from one country to another. I can see a case for the limited harmonization of some of our laws in cases where we both agree and theres strong public support.

But the very LAST thing we need is some kind of North American Lisbon Treaty.

If anything we need to decentralize political power, and put most of it at the municiple level.

Canada and The United States would be under the control of a government more left of centre than the Democrats even.

The reasons against merger are all based on what happens to be the situation today, in various areas of politics, but long term it makes sense for countries to fade away.

[Argus]

But some things are covered by international law, right ? Or regional ? Or local ? At a meta-level, if we agree on the major points does that mean countries wouldn't be needed ?

Most things are cultural. That's why gays aren't killed or imporisoned here, and why women can vote and can walk the streets like WHORES with their bare arms and knees, even showing their HAIR!

In Canada, we have a feeling of shared community involvement in helping others, while in the US it's more an every-man-for-himself kind of mentality.

Even our national motto "Peace, Order and good government" go completely against US motto of "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

[Wilber]

Not going to happen. Our two countries came about because North Americans had fundamental differences when it came to governance and social issues. Even though we stopped shooting at each other a long time ago and get along pretty well, those differences haven't changed very much.

[dre]

Canada and The United States would be under the control of a government more left of centre than the Democrats even.

Sounds like fantasty to me. I dont think our tiny population would have enough votes to shift their government to the left in any noticable way at all.

Furthermore you would be surrendering our greatest asset which is a high ammount of natural resources per capita.

The reasons against merger are all based on what happens to be the situation today, in various areas of politics, but long term it makes sense for countries to fade away.

No the biggest reason is human nature. People dont like to be governed from afar. They will overwhelmingly reject such an idea, so the only way you can ever get it is to force it on them. Thats what they basically did in Europe... most countries joined the EU without public referendums. Every single country that had one voted no. And now you are seeing big gains for right wing nationalists in EU countries which could eventually lead to a disaster.

Its a wreckless and dangerous idea Mike and nobody wants it.

[Guest American Woman]

Not going to happen. Our two countries came about because North Americans had fundamental differences when it came to governance and social issues. Even though we stopped shooting at each other a long time ago and get along pretty well, those differences haven't changed very much.

I agree. Neither country wants to be the other.

[dre]

Not going to happen. Our two countries came about because North Americans had fundamental differences when it came to governance and social issues. Even though we stopped shooting at each other a long time ago and get along pretty well, those differences haven't changed very much.

Not only that but theres the fundamental economic stupidity of it.

Your neighbor has an acre of land that has been strip mined, and clearcut. 10 people live there. You have an acre of land with stands of trees thats rich in mineral deposits. You live there by yourself.

"Lets merge and all just share!!!" simply means you go from controlling half the land and resources, to controlling 1/11th. A way BETTER approach would have been to NOT merge, and instead sustainably harvest your resources and sell them to the folks next door. This is what we have done and its is precisely why we have among the highest standards of life in human history.

[Argus]

Canada and The United States would be under the control of a government more left of centre than the Democrats even.

Even? You make it seem like the Democrats are left wing. They're not on a Canadian scale. People seem to forget Bill Clinton called for a constitutional change to ensure gays couldn't marry. Besides, too much corruption throughout their political system, all of it approved benignly by a Supreme Court which clearly doesn't care about the effect of its rulings.

[Argus]

Sounds like fantasty to me. I dont think our tiny population would have enough votes to shift their government to the left in any noticable way at all.

The Democrats control the Senate because of five or six seats. Canada would probably get at least 7 or 8 seats which would all go Democrat. In the Congress, the Dems have 201, the Reps have 234 out of 435 seats. Canada would probably get about 41 seats, and I'd be surprised if any went Republican.

So yah, it'd make a difference.

[Wilber]

The Democrats control the Senate because of five or six seats. Canada would probably get at least 7 or 8 seats which would all go Democrat. In the Congress, the Dems have 201, the Reps have 234 out of 435 seats. Canada would probably get about 41 seats, and I'd be surprised if any went Republican.

So yah, it'd make a difference.

If so, that just begs the question. Why would we even want to go there?

[Guest American Woman]

Even? You make it seem like the Democrats are left wing. They're not on a Canadian scale. People seem to forget Bill Clinton called for a constitutional change to ensure gays couldn't marry.

You seem to forget that Harper campaigned on the idea that gay marriage went against True Canadian Values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xFbPz6hMa1c

"Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country."

"I am committed, when I am elected prime minister...to bring in legislation that will define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gay.marriage.bill.sees.15000.rally.in.canada/2555.htm

Times change, politicians with them.

[Michael Hardner]

Even our national motto "Peace, Order and good government" go completely against US motto of "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

Yes, who can forget that popular US "motto" - why it's printed on every bullet and body bag sold at the 7-11 isn't it ?

[Michael Hardner]

No the biggest reason is human nature. People dont like to be governed from afar. ...

Its a wreckless and dangerous idea Mike and nobody wants it.

Some items, though, need to be managed globally, and some need to be managed locally. I don't know about in-between things.

Pretty much every objection I've seen is a temporary one, which means it's going to happen someday. That means the first step is talking about it, and here we are. We have taken the first step.

[Shady]

Most things are cultural. That's why gays aren't killed or imporisoned here, and why women can vote and can walk the streets like WHORES with their bare arms and knees, even showing their HAIR!

In Canada, we have a feeling of shared community involvement in helping others, while in the US it's more an every-man-for-himself kind of mentality.

Even our national motto "Peace, Order and good government" go completely against US motto of "Kill them all and let God sort them out".

There you go again, more American political ignorance. It's like a broken record. No, that's not our motto. No, that's not their motto. The US spends more per capita on helping the poor and disadvantaged than any other country in the world. You simply don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't seem to stop you from posting about such topics apparently. Shame on you.

[Shady]

Yes, who can forget that popular US "motto" - why it's printed on every bullet and body bag sold at the 7-11 isn't it ?

Good point. I think he just makes this stuff up as he goes along. It's really quite amusing.

[Michael Hardner]

People seem to forget Bill Clinton called for a constitutional change to ensure gays couldn't marry. Besides, too much corruption throughout their political system, all of it approved benignly by a Supreme Court which clearly doesn't care about the effect of its rulings.

Speaking of temporal barriers... gay marriage didn't move forward in Canada until later than that too.

How about "the countries can't merge - the US isn't in favour of gay marriage" ? Do you see how that sounds, because in 5, 10, 20 years there will be gay marriage, there will be global carbon management, there will be socialized medicine.

Let's talk about uniting, converging and collectivizing in a new, more economical and more supportive way. We can take advantage of new technology while we're at it, too.

[Shady]

Even? You make it seem like the Democrats are left wing. They're not on a Canadian scale. People seem to forget Bill Clinton called for a constitutional change to ensure gays couldn't marry. Besides, too much corruption throughout their political system, all of it approved benignly by a Supreme Court which clearly doesn't care about the effect of its rulings.

There you go again, more American political ignorance. Yes, much of the Democrats in congress, especially the leadership is very left wing. Singling out conservative Democrats from the south, like Bill Clinton doesn't change that fact. If Democrats were in Canada, they'd be pushing the same leftwing agenda here that they're pushing there.

-Immediate citizenship for people in the country illegallly.

-Immediate access to all social services for people in the country illegally.

-Restricting our pipelines and energy projects like the oil sands in Alberta.

-Closing down power plants that don't meet their own emissions standards.

-Pushing for Spanish as an official language.

[TimG]

Do you see how that sounds, because in 5, 10, 20 years there will be gay marriage, there will be global carbon management, there will be socialized medicine.

There will never be any 'global carbon management' regime. Politically and economically it makes no sense. If anything is done about "carbon" it will be the result of free market bringing products out that people want to buy. Government regulation of "carbon" is futile and doomed to fail.

That said: the prospect of a global wealth retribution scheme (a.k.a. carbon management) administered by corrupt despots at the UN is perhaps one of the biggest arguments in favor of strong countries which can stand up for the best interests of their citizens - even if these best interests are perceived as "unfair" by naive socialists.

Edited October 5, 2013 by TimG