North American Union and spp.gov

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A

http://www.spp.gov/

WTF is going on around here? North American Union. The first time I heard of this was when I was a kid back in high school in the late 80s. I though at first it might be cool. I was also aware of the EU which was being talked about around that time as well. I thought it would never really happen. After the EU was formed I was sure something like this was going to happen in North America. Some other unions I see for the near future, are South America and Eastern Asia.

The agreement was made back in 2004/2005 with Martin, Bush and Fox. Why the hell was this not reported in the news? Or were we just not paying attention?

I simply do not like it. All identities will be erased. You will no longer be Canadian, or American or Mexican. you are a citizen of the NAU.... Canamerimexians?? Meximericanas??

[jbg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A

http://www.spp.gov/

WTF is going on around here? North American Union. The first time I heard of this was when I was a kid back in high school in the late 80s. I though at first it might be cool. I was also aware of the EU which was being talked about around that time as well. I thought it would never really happen. After the EU was formed I was sure something like this was going to happen in North America. Some other unions I see for the near future, are South America and Eastern Asia.

The agreement was made back in 2004/2005 with Martin, Bush and Fox. Why the hell was this not reported in the news? Or were we just not paying attention?

I simply do not like it. All identities will be erased. You will no longer be Canadian, or American or Mexican. you are a citizen of the NAU.... Canamerimexians?? Meximericanas??

Unlike the EU, it's a lot of smooth words. Basically, from what I gather, it won't affect identity. Mexico is too different from its English-speaking neighbors to the north, Canada and the US, both in terms of form of government and relative living standards, to really form an EU. The US would go berserk since we'd have to pay to bring living standards up to US levels. If we won't do that for Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands, we're doing that for Mexico? I don't think so.

In short, there will be integration of trade and security, but not of currencies, or other fundamental things. Even in Europe, language and other distinctions are not slated for erasure.

I'm listening to the Dobb's report and it sounds hysterical.

[blkowl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueAdeZuns3A

http://www.spp.gov/

WTF is going on around here? North American Union. The first time I heard of this was when I was a kid back in high school in the late 80s. I though at first it might be cool. I was also aware of the EU which was being talked about around that time as well. I thought it would never really happen. After the EU was formed I was sure something like this was going to happen in North America. Some other unions I see for the near future, are South America and Eastern Asia.

The agreement was made back in 2004/2005 with Martin, Bush and Fox. Why the hell was this not reported in the news? Or were we just not paying attention?

I simply do not like it. All identities will be erased. You will no longer be Canadian, or American or Mexican. you are a citizen of the NAU.... Canamerimexians?? Meximericanas??

Because the Globalist control the new we receive.

In the next few years you will see the power of the secrect government that governs the world.

We have already seen they new religion in movies and in books!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming “North American Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.

* NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a “non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.” Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.

* Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an “investor based organization supported by the public and private sector” to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: “For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality.”

* The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an “SPP office” that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that “(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented.” The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.

* The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.

The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.

A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

[jbg]

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

*snip*

The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.

A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

Are you assuming our labor unions and political parties are asleep? This is either unadulterated rubbish, or there's a good reason for it. The attack is on the article, not the person who posted it, mind you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Gosthacked,

An interesting find. Not much to it htough, but streamlining NAFTA.

As to one of the above poster's conspiracy rant, here is why it is garbage...

http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_Myths_Debunked.pdf

[blkowl]

Dear Gosthacked,

An interesting find. Not much to it htough, but streamlining NAFTA.

As to one of the above poster's conspiracy rant, here is why it is garbage...

http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_Myths_Debunked.pdf

I read the pages and basically it said that the highway map wasn't up to scale.

When you look a government sites and contract look for what is doesn't say like:

www.WorldNetDaily.com

Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil?

WND investigation finds new evidence U.S. facility to be on foreign territory

Posted: July 5, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A Mexican customs facility planned for Kansas City's inland port may have to be considered the sovereign soil of Mexico as part of an effort to lure officials in that country into cooperating with the Missouri development project.

Despite adamant denials by Kansas City Area Development Council officials, WND has obtained emails and other documents from top executives with the KCSmartPort project that suggest such a facility would by necessity be considered Mexican territory – despite its presence in the heartland of the U.S.

The documents were obtained with the assistance of Joyce Mucci, the founder of the Mid-America Immigration Reform Coalition, under the provisions of the Missouri Sunshine Law from the City of Kansas City, Mo., and from the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

The documents reveal a two-year campaign initiated in 2004 and managed by top SmartPort officials to win Mexico's agreement to establish the Mexican customs facility within the Kansas City "inland port." Kansas City SmartPort launched a concerted effort to advance the idea, holding numerous meetings with Mexican government officials in Mexico and in Washington to push the Mexican port idea in concert. The effort involved Missouri elected officials, including members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

The documents make clear that Mexico demanded Kansas City pay all costs.

To date, the Kansas City Council has voted a $2.5 million loan to KC SmartPort to build the Mexican customs facility in the West Bottoms near Kemper Arena on city-owned land east of Liberty Street and mostly south of Interstate 670.

"Kansas City, Mo., is leasing the site to Kansas City SmartPort," Tasha Hammes of the development council wrote to WND last month. "It will NOT be leased to any Mexican government agency or to be sovereign territory of Mexico."

Yet, an email written June 21, 2004, by Chris Gutierrez, the president of the KC SmartPort, stated that the Mexican customs office space "would need to be designated as Mexican sovereign territory and meet certain requirements."

Even more recently, an email dated March 10 of this year was sent by Gutierrez to a long list of recipients that left no doubt that KC SmartPort has not yet received federal government approval to move forward with the Mexican customs facility. Gutierrez informed the email recipients that the processing a critical form, designated "C-175," needs approval by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection before the form is passed to the State Department for final approval. The processing and approval of the C-175 application is holding up the final approval of the Mexican customs facility.

In the same memo, Gutierrez reported on a recent meeting in Washington: "Both sides (U.S. and Mexican officials) met several weeks ago and the 'document' or as the U.S. refers to it the 'C-175' is near completion. This document is the basis for the procedural, regulatory, jurisdictional, etc. for the project. It defines what will happen and how and what laws, etc. allow this to happen. Both sides have put a lot of effort into this document."

Gutierrez appeared concerned that the intensive lobbying done by KC SmartPort could be a wasted effort if the final U.S. government approvals were not completed before Mexico elected a new president this week.

"The process for the document is for U.S. Customs to present the document to the acting Commissioner and officials with the Dept of Homeland Security," he wrote. "This will happen in March. The document will then be reviewed by the U.S. State Dept who has been consulted on the document all along so they are aware of it. State will make the recommendation on the diplomatic status of the Mexican officials and the documents fit with existing agreements, accords or treaties. Mexico will wait for this recommendation and then get the sign off of their Foreign Ministry (Secretary [Luis Ernesto] Derbez and Under Secretary [Geronimo] Gutierrez are well versed on the project and support it). The hope of both sides is that this will be completed before the Mexican presidential elections in July."

Gutierrez's March 10 email ended by expressing a hope that discussion of the Mexican customs facility issue could be kept from the public, obviously concerned that press scrutiny might end up producing an adverse public reaction that could destroy the project. Gutierrez specifically proposes a low-profile strategy designed to keep the KC SmartPort and the Mexican customs facility out of public view.

"The one negative that was conveyed to us was the problems and pressure the media attention has created for both sides," he wrote. "They want us to stop promoting the facility to the press. We let them know that we have never issued a proactive press release on this and that the media attention started when Commissioner (Robert) Bonner was in KC and met with Rick Alm. The official direction moving forward is that we can respond to the media with a standard response that I will send out on Monday and refer all other inquiries to U.S. Customs. I will get the name from them to refer media calls."

Robert C. Bonner is the commissioner of CBP within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Rick Alm is a reporter for the Kansas City Star.

On May 16, Bonner addressed the Chamber of Commerce in Kansas City, saying the Mexican customs facility idea "could be enormously important to Kansas City and the surrounding area, and would – or should – facilitate trade for U.S. exporters by expediting the border clearance process for U.S. goods and products exported to Mexico." Bonner added that "If the Kansas City SmartPort is implemented, Kansas City could become a major new trade link between the U.S. and Mexico."

Among those copied on Gutierrez's email of March 10, 2006, was George D. Blackwood, the president of NASCO (North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc.). Blackwood is an attorney with Blackwood, Langworthy & Tyson in Kansas City. He also served as the former chairman of the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, which he helped found in 1998 when he was serving as mayor pro tem of Kansas City. NASCO supports the Kansas City SmartPort's initiative to establish a Mexican customs facility as part of the NASCO SuperCorridor project.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The concept of fortress North America was not new when I went to school in the seventies. The steps currently in place takes us further down that road.

I do not support the globalization efforts of transnational corporations who have worked long and hard to achieve this goal. It is not a political association, it is an economic consolidation of markets and manipulations of those markets to the advatage of the affluent captains of industry.

There is no social advantage that can be found within this concept. The three distinct societies have common economic but diverse political foundations. Considering the influence of business on government the logical consequence of this endeavour will be the short term profit motive that will have long term detrimental social ramifications.

In order to accomplish the functional creation of a super-state by combining the three nations of North America, the acceptance of the dominance of the Asian marketplace must be realized. That market is ten times the size of our own, with a labour force we are not currently able to compete with. Jobs are being exported to that region at a horrorific rate that serve to both bolster their economy while it detracts from our own, all in the name of a profit motive.

We should be careful what we ask for.

[August1991]

I do not support the globalization efforts of transnational corporations who have worked long and hard to achieve this goal. It is not a political association, it is an economic consolidation of markets and manipulations of those markets to the advatage of the affluent captains of industry.

You mean a manipulation of millions of people on a continent to achieve this?

Did "captains of industry" manipulate these points into position? Or did millions of people simply going about their ordinary daily lives?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

You mean a manipulation of millions of people on a continent to achieve this?

I've seen these pics before, including a startling one related to the 'Eastern Blackout' a couple of years ago. To me, it looks like an x-ray exposing cancer cells on our Mother Earth, each point of light representing the death of the cells that were once there.

Did "captains of industry" manipulate these points into position? Or did millions of people simply going about their ordinary daily lives?

No, the 'captains of industry' program the cells (or 'points') to consume the host, as fast and as selfishly as possible, rather than consider amalgamating the cells into a self-supporting, non-destructive entity of it's own.

[Charles Anthony]

the 'captains of industry' program the cells (or 'points') to consume the host, as fast and as selfishly as possible, rather than consider almalgamating the cells into a self-supporting, non-destructive entity of it's own.

Huh?

That sounds like a hocus-pocus super-natural political theory put to poetry, to me. All it needs is some background music to support it...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Did "captains of industry" manipulate these points into position? Or did millions of people simply going about their ordinary daily lives?

Clever arguement! The simple truth is that a vast majority of citizens go through their daily lives unaware of the consequences of their small part in the mainstream of our socio/political civilization. We need to eat, so we work. That work is less important to the citizen than the wage they receive from preforming that work. Its all about looking out for number one isn't it?

By taking this position we are protecting ourselves against outside influences. This is understandable but short sighted.

[Charles Anthony]

Whenever the topics of citizenship or free trade or borders or sovereignty or amalgamtion are brought up (regardless of whether the angle is politics or commerce or culture) I always like to suggest the following exercise to test any hypothesis: "Why stop there?"

To illustrate in the context of this thread from Canadian perspective:

If you support one big USNA, why stop there? why not join together with Central and South America?

What advantages do you have (commercial or cultural or whateveral) that can not be agrandized even further by forming one enormous USNCSA too?

If you oppose one big USNA, why stop there? why stop at Canada? why not fraction every province? or every city?

What advantages do you have (commercial or cultural or whateveral) as a small country (keep Canada as it is, i.e. not part of a larger USNA country) that can not be improved even further by becoming an even smaller set of countries?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Very good!

Actually I am Alberta separatist! If it were up to me I would devolve government into far smaller ecomonic and cultural centres with more independence of action available to them. At the same time I advocate a multinational defensive structure based on mutual needs. Let us govern ourselves but join together in times of need in mutual support.

Strange but true, that is my little vision for the future.

[GostHacked]

Very good!

Actually I am Alberta separatist! If it were up to me I would devolve government into far smaller ecomonic and cultural centres with more independence of action available to them. At the same time I advocate a multinational defensive structure based on mutual needs. Let us govern ourselves but join together in times of need in mutual support.

Strange but true, that is my little vision for the future.

Alberta Seperatists? Sure.

But allies of the past may not be allies of the future. This happens even in our current state of countries. One world government is not an idea I can support. Smaller countries (like lets say canada breaking up) will just cling together to from alliances for ecomonic and security. Saftey in numbers.

Go too big, and you forget the little guys

Go too small and you loose sight of the bigger picture.

[Charles Anthony]

Smaller countries (like lets say canada breaking up) will just cling together to from alliances for ecomonic and security. Saftey in numbers.

Precisely and that is where the fairness comes in effect. Nobody will be bigger than the others.

It will never be efficient to choose violence and war over commerce and trade.

It will never be possible for a distant government to manhandle a population, i.e. a West Coast trade minister determining policy for the East Coast lumber market.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

It will never be efficient to choose violence and war over commerce and trade.

I'll assume you mean 'pareto-efficient', but you'd still be wrong. That is, commerce, trade and war all have it that the 'name of the game [theory] is to win, not to share the spoils.

[Charles Anthony]

It will never be efficient to choose violence and war over commerce and trade.

I'll assume you mean 'pareto-efficient', but you'd still be wrong.

I dug myself a hole.

I should not have used the word "efficient" because technically it only applies when each agent respects individual freedom. We do not have that and probably never will.

I should have said "fair" instead.

Wait a minute.... I am starting get some forum deja-voodoo....

I am going to do a forum search.... Dang! the search function is fouled up!

Anyway...

all have it that the 'name of the game [theory] is to win, not to share the spoils.

Correct.

Nevertheless, each individual makes decisions on how to act based on (their belief of) the probability of success. Thus, the resolution ends up in "sharing of the spoils" anyway in an efficient manner based on information available.

[reinge]

North America should fourm a Union like the E.U. First we are much more intergrated already than Europe. Hate to say it but Western Canada would be much better off in such a union than we are now. I guess people in Canada are opposed to the idea because of some romantic sence of national identity? Hate to say it but we are already an intergrated union, just not offfically. example: I work for an american company, watch american t.v, movies, and listen to american music. That's just me, I may be wrong but I have a feeling that i'm not the only Canadian that lives his life like this. I think the spp hasn't gone far enough. I think it should be a free movment of not just goods but people. Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

[Charles Anthony]

Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

I would expect the theory to be that if 'less privileged immigrants' are used to living in hovels, then they would be tickled to come here and build bigger hovels. Then they'd think that they were rich.

Seriously, though...

all have it that the 'name of the game [theory] is to win, not to share the spoils.

Correct.

Nevertheless, each individual makes decisions on how to act based on (their belief of) the probability of success. Thus, the resolution ends up in "sharing of the spoils" anyway in an efficient manner based on information available.

If 'pareto-optimal' is chased, is it the allocation of number pie wedges that was supposed to be fair, or the opportunity to aquire them? Sort of like Monopoly , are you to simply to share the properties available? Or are you 'given a fair shake' just by being allowed to roll the dice?

PS.

Wait a minute.... I am starting get some forum deja-voodoo....

I am not sure 'Charles Anthony, Joined: 29-May 06

Member No.: 1823 is 'old enough' to have those feelings...lol

[jbg]

North America should fourm a Union like the E.U. First we are much more intergrated already than Europe. Hate to say it but Western Canada would be much better off in such a union than we are now. I guess people in Canada are opposed to the idea because of some romantic sence of national identity? Hate to say it but we are already an intergrated union, just not offfically. example: I work for an american company, watch american t.v, movies, and listen to american music. That's just me, I may be wrong but I have a feeling that i'm not the only Canadian that lives his life like this. I think the spp hasn't gone far enough. I think it should be a free movment of not just goods but people. Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

I agree with most of your post. I do not believe we are in need of the massive bureaucracy that an "EU" style union would entail. Your point that "we are already an intergrated union, just not offfically" is well taken. The US and Canada are bound together by common history, somewhat simillar languages and cultures (Canadian and English sound remarkably similar) and by a long-term absence of hostilities. Our countries' soldiers have in fact fought three major wars and several minor ones as brothers-in-arms. There are even a few cases of communities on each side of the border sharing fire departments. There is an operat house that straddles the Vermont-Quebec border.For our countries, a series of specific agreements such as NAFTA works quite well..

Europe could not be more different. In parts of Europe, a trip of 200 Trudeau Units in any direction brings youi into an entirely different culture, language and sometimes even alphabet. There was over 1000 years of more or less continuous warfare, ending tenuously in 1945 (the peace being enforced by English-speaking people). In short, there is remarkably little in common among most of the European countries (Germany and Austria being horrible exceptions). There is no natural coming-together of peoples in Europe, the way there is between Canadians and Americans. Thus, any attempt at integration (to foster a bureaucracy as much as for the stated aim of being a counterweight to the US) is unnatural, and requires compulsory process to make it work.

Thus, I do not believe a formal Union is needed or desireable.

[jbg]

Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies. Mexico's main product, oil, sells on transparent markets at anonymously set market prices. Thus, we have remarkably little to offer them, and vice versa.

[Charles Anthony]

Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies.

So do Canada and the U.S.A. have bureacracies to keep them together. Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration?

Mexico's main product, oil, sells on transparent markets at anonymously set market prices.

A lot of commodities are traded that way. In fact, Canada and the U.S.A. and tons of other oil producers trade amonst each other in the same oil markets. What is so special? Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration?

Thus, we have remarkably little to offer them, and vice versa.

We have little to offer them??? Sorry, amigo. No comprendo.

I do not believe we are in need of the massive bureaucracy that an "EU" style union would entail.

I agree.

Why not keep our borders as they are but eliminate barriers to trade and migration entirely?

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

I would expect the theory to be that if 'less privileged immigrants' are used to living in hovels, then they would be tickled to come here and build bigger hovels. Then they'd think that they were rich.

I suspect that your theory touches closer to why some people would exclude one particular nation from migration. I think there are people who simply do not like Mexicans.

If 'pareto-optimal' is chased, is it the allocation of number pie wedges that was supposed to be fair, or the opportunity to aquire them?

The original issue was warfare, in which the comparison with commerce can not be made with simple pareto economics. As we know, the basis of it all depends on freedom or a lack of coersion. (Although, the game might conceivably be redefined in a convoluted manner to incorporate the market of force and possibly allowing a way to explain the outcomes.)

Nevertheless, if you are looking at pareto-efficiency in general, where it does apply, as we know, "opportunity" is loosely defined vis-a-vis freedom. I have heard confused socialists and confused anarchists and confused communists define "opportunity" and "choice" as they see fit to justify their means. For example, if you are born without a brain, you do not have the opportunity to go to school if there exists a technology on the planet Krypton to regenerate a brain. The confused politician will say that somebody other than yourself is responsible for going to Krypton, getting the technology, regenerating your brain and paying your way through school. Otherwise, going to school is not an available "opportunity" for you.

Sort of like Monopoly ™, are you to simply to share the properties available? Or are you 'given a fair shake' just by being allowed to roll the dice?

Neither, it has to do with freedom. Being "given a fair shake" is twisted by freeloaders to expand their definition of freedom into the realm of getting-something-from-somebody-else or to justify their theft.

But, I am sure we know all of that already. Should the dust from old threads be brushed off and revived?

PS.

Wait a minute.... I am starting get some forum deja-voodoo....

I am not sure 'Charles Anthony, Joined: 29-May 06

Member No.: 1823 is 'old enough' to have those feelings...lol

Yeah, it is a combination of other forums and searching through the previous posts of this forum from before I discovered it. I have come to learn from other active members that I am not the first anarchist to push the principle of freedom.

Think of me as Dr. Frankenstein (Hmmm... maybe I should change my Member Name....) pumping life into the veins of a monster.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would tend to think that without the "largely paper exercise" we would remain at best a junior partner. If a public majority could ever come out in favor of it I would hope to go through the motions and do it right. NAFTA is a business deal. It does little for citizens, outside or the interaction with with business, at all. The same thing will happen with every other agreement with the United States. They are not fools, the will press any advantage given to them.

Aside from that we have different political systems that would require harmonization and integration in order to function as a super state.

[jbg]

My overall reply is that ocuntries that are successful, such as the US and Canada should have the ability to retain what created their affluence, and not surrender it to impoverished hordes that want in on the "booty".

Canadian and Americans should be able to live or work freely in either country. I would include Mexico but it needs to increase it's standard of living first, let's face it half of Mexico would move in the first month.

Explain: why exclude Mexican migration based on Mexico's standard of living?

See my post just above. Essentially, unions are more or less paper exercises, leading merely to spawning of bureaucracies.

So do Canada and the U.S.A. have bureacracies to keep them together. Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration?

I certainly do not argue for excluding Mexican migration. Quite the contrary. I argue for keeping the numbers under some modicum of control, much higher than many other would like. I am not for uniting the countries because the social needs of the Mexican population would overwhelm the rest of North America. Also, the presence of another foreign language with that huge number of speakers would make Canada's Quebec problem look tame.

Mexico's main product, oil, sells on transparent markets at anonymously set market prices.

A lot of commodities are traded that way. In fact, Canada and the U.S.A. and tons of other oil producers trade amonst each other in the same oil markets. What is so special? Where is the connection to excluding Mexican migration?

Thus, we have remarkably little to offer them, and vice versa.

We have little to offer them??? Sorry, amigo. No comprendo.

My point is that th eonly advantage for them would be the availability of relatively wealthier people from what's now the United States to give assistance. Thus, Americans and Canadians would have to work even harder to sustain a lower standard of living. My point is the united Mexico would not lower the price we pay for oil since that is a market driven price.

I do not believe we are in need of the massive bureaucracy that an "EU" style union would entail.

I agree.

Why not keep our borders as they are but eliminate barriers to trade and migration entirely?

Between the US and Canada that would work fine, providing that existing immigration laws are enforced and people who are not integrated into our cultures are induced to leave.