A Canada/US merger?

[Wilber]

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.

We already have gay marriage and socialized medicine. Why go backwards until the Americans catch up?

[dre]

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.

None of the reasons I have given are likely to be temporary at all.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Again, this argument is entirely in the perspective of problems that exist today without a real world government.

[Michael Hardner]

None of the reasons I have given are likely to be temporary at all.

Most of them aren't - but some of them are. The current political situation, for example, is something that is... current, as in - it wasn't that way 30, 40 years ago.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's start talking about the rights, responsibilities and values a new form of national of union would embody.

What kind of trade-offs could we make to move forward from our current social arrangement ?

These questions intrigue me.

I would like guaranteed social welfare in the new state, and an obligation for the wealthiest in society to maintain that.

[Argus]

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.

The way they think of government and society and the way we think of government and society are too different. Their laws are unworkable, their politics corrupt, and their sense of freedom and paranoia means they think everyone should have an automatic weapon. I don't see any of that changing any time soon. They are far more religious than we are, and their religious beliefs tend to be more fundamentalist than ours. Their view of society is that it's up to you to succeed or fail and they don't really care which. This is why they have massive slums and massive prisons. Canadians have more of a collectivist sense about these things.

[Argus]

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 ?

Might as well be. Point is we really believe in good government and an ordered society.

They believe God will take care of everything.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Might as well be. Point is we really believe in good government and an ordered society.

They believe God will take care of everything.

Yeah, that's what we believe. That's what our Constitution is based on. Oh, wait..... that would be Canada's preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...."

[The_Squid]

Yeah, that's what we believe. That's what our Constitution is based on. Oh, wait..... that would be Canada's preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...."

Yes, the 1800's were very different than the reality of Canada today. What it says there has no bearing on the religiosity of Canadians.

[Michael Hardner]

The way they think of government and society and the way we think of government and society are too different. Their laws are unworkable, their politics corrupt, and their sense of freedom and paranoia means they think everyone should have an automatic weapon. I don't see any of that changing any time soon. They are far more religious than we are, and their religious beliefs tend to be more fundamentalist than ours. Their view of society is that it's up to you to succeed or fail and they don't really care which. This is why they have massive slums and massive prisons. Canadians have more of a collectivist sense about these things.

"any time soon" does come at some point, and it doesn't just arrive, the time for change will come because of underlying changes and discussions which start far in the past, as in now. There is a sense in the US that the population is tired of politics as usual, and wants change. What deeper change could we be talking about than a fundamental re-connection of individuals, regions, and groups with their governments.

[dre]

"any time soon" does come at some point, and it doesn't just arrive, the time for change will come because of underlying changes and discussions which start far in the past, as in now. There is a sense in the US that the population is tired of politics as usual, and wants change. What deeper change could we be talking about than a fundamental re-connection of individuals, regions, and groups with their governments.

I think the opposite is going to happen.

Most of them aren't - but some of them are. The current political situation, for example, is something that is... current, as in - it wasn't that way 30, 40 years ago.

I just think you have a poor read on the direction things are going. I think you are going to see the exact opposite happen. Theres about a dozen new countries in the world since 1980 alone. Its very hard to keep states intact especially when those states have multiple language groups, ethnicities etc. Canada has been successful at this but we always had a region declare independance ourselves a few decades ago.

People around the world are rejecting the centralization of political power,

A more useful dicussion might be... How can we move political power out of the hands of centralized political cartells in far-off capitols and put it back in the hands of members of the local communities that have to live with these decisions?

And how can we foster cooperation and peace, and multilateral action for the common good with an ever increasing number of sovereign states?

And how will multilaterism change as the balance of power swings from west to east?

Edited October 6, 2013 by dre

[Wilber]

Let's start talking about the rights, responsibilities and values a new form of national of union would embody.

What kind of trade-offs could we make to move forward from our current social arrangement ?

These questions intrigue me.

I would like guaranteed social welfare in the new state, and an obligation for the wealthiest in society to maintain that.

Things like the Second Amendment don't intrigue me at all. I don't want any part of it and if you think the Americans are going to give it up, you are dreaming.

[TimG]

Again, this argument is entirely in the perspective of problems that exist today without a real world government.

The issue is no one in their right mind would want a world government. There is no way such an entity could fairly represent the diverse peoples that live on this planet.

The developed countries that exist today will continue to exist for no reason other than momentum. i.e. changing the status quo is disruptive and there is no compelling reason to risk disruption in order to create something that could easily be worse than the status quo. The education system will ensure that future generations of the existing countries will have a nominal attachment to their countries for the foreseeable future.

Edited October 6, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

The way they think of government and society and the way we think of government and society are too different. Their laws are unworkable, their politics corrupt, and their sense of freedom and paranoia means they think everyone should have an automatic weapon. I don't see any of that changing any time soon. They are far more religious than we are, and their religious beliefs tend to be more fundamentalist than ours. Their view of society is that it's up to you to succeed or fail and they don't really care which. This is why they have massive slums and massive prisons. Canadians have more of a collectivist sense about these things.

"they ... they ... they" !!!

What a lot of broadbrush stereotyped generalizations!

I'm embarrassed to hear a Canadian foam at the mouth like that!

We're very reserved and polite people who say "Sorry" a lot ... and you should!

[bleeding heart]

Jacee's right. The US is a complex society, and as with all complex societies, the variation of opinion is massive. Even as far as generalizations go, there are pretty significant regional distinctions, and then further distinctions within each region.

At any rate, the cultural/social similarities between Americans and Canadians far outweigh the differences, in my experience.

So on that note, maybe I'm being self-indulgent when I say that Americans are awesome people.

[cybercoma]

Globalization has made countries not quite as important as they once were, but they're still very important. It's just a smaller world out there now, with non-state actors (terrorists, transnational corporations) flexing more power than before.

I dunno, I think we've had globalism for the better part of the last 700 years. There's been transoceanic trade routes guarded by company hired "militaries" and supported by governments. It's a lot like what we have now, just less technological. And, political borders have been challenged for as long as they've existed. It seems they're challenged less these days. Edited October 6, 2013 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

I just think you have a poor read on the direction things are going. I think you are going to see the exact opposite happen. Theres about a dozen new countries in the world since 1980 alone.

And how can we foster cooperation and peace, and multilateral action for the common good with an ever increasing number of sovereign states?

And how will multilaterism change as the balance of power swings from west to east?

I didn't know there were more sovereign states, and that's something to consider. But wouldn't you agree that the world is a lot closer than it was in 1980 ? The so-called 'balance of power' is really between people who have power, and people who don't. Those people influence states, but states are built on governments and people. If we unite governments and people in a foundation of rights and guaranteed prosperity, that would be a great way to bring the world even closer together, without as many power distortions.

[Michael Hardner]

Things like the Second Amendment don't intrigue me at all. I don't want any part of it and if you think the Americans are going to give it up, you are dreaming.

So the US will never give up the right to arms ? Not in 10,000 years ?

[Michael Hardner]

The issue is no one in their right mind would want a world government. There is no way such an entity could fairly represent the diverse peoples that live on this planet.

The developed countries that exist today will continue to exist for no reason other than momentum. i.e. changing the status quo is disruptive and there is no compelling reason to risk disruption in order to create something that could easily be worse than the status quo. The education system will ensure that future generations of the existing countries will have a nominal attachment to their countries for the foreseeable future.

Well, regionalism is on the rise though. You already have regional patriots and people who disavow their connection to far-away centres of power as described on this thread.

North American unification may be a long way off, but it's not a "never going to happen" thing. Why can't we talk about it ? People seem to have a real aversion to using their imaginations, sometimes.

[TimG]

North American unification may be a long way off, but it's not a "never going to happen" thing.

It is a 'never going to happen thing'. The status quo will not change unless there is a crisis and I cannot imagine a crisis that would make a north american union seem like a good idea.

Why can't we talk about it ? People seem to have a real aversion to using their imaginations, sometimes.

No one is saying you can't talk about it. The responses you are getting seem to suggest a lot of people think little of the idea.

[scribblet]

Of course it'll never happen, but maybe we could have a joint currency. Whoever split the country originally got it wrong, it should've been split down the middle vertically then we would've had Florida and wouldn't need health insurance to get down there. Just saying....

[Wilber]

So the US will never give up the right to arms ? Not in 10,000 years ?

Why not say, not in the next million years. It doesn't matter, I wouldn't be the least bit interested until they have given it up, so get back to me when they have.

[eyeball]

People seem to have a real aversion to using their imaginations, sometimes.

Maybe the topic causes people to clam up because they have an aversion to being labelled a wing-nut if they start taking it too seriously. In some parts if the world you'd probably get shot.

People around the world are rejecting the centralization of political power,

A more useful dicussion might be... How can we move political power out of the hands of centralized political cartells in far-off capitols and put it back in the hands of members of the local communities that have to live with these decisions?

I think we're going to arrive at this point the hard but natural way, after the interregnum. I doubt it's going to be a whole lot of fun getting there but that's probably a perfectly normal and natural part of the process.

I imagine more than a few Romans also kept their imaginations to themselves back in the day.

[carepov]

Food for thought:

Most of us have passionate and valid arguments that Canada should not merge with the USA.

Can we pretty much apply the same arguments about why Quebec shoud not remain merged with the rest of Canada? If not, why not?

[dre]

Of course it'll never happen, but maybe we could have a joint currency. Whoever split the country originally got it wrong, it should've been split down the middle vertically then we would've had Florida and wouldn't need health insurance to get down there. Just saying....

Florida is the last thing we need.

Something like this could probably work....