North American Union and spp.gov

Jerry J. Fortin · July 13, 2006

Lets run with that ball for a few posts, I want to see where it goes.

So if Canada and the USA decided to enter into a superstate agreement how could it be governed? Do we retain a Prime Minister and do you retain a President with some form of Superior Administration at the top of the pile?

jbg · July 13, 2006

Lets run with that ball for a few posts, I want to see where it goes.
So if Canada and the USA decided to enter into a superstate agreement how could it be governed? Do we retain a Prime Minister and do you retain a President with some form of Superior Administration at the top of the pile?

Queen would personally rule.

Charles Anthony · July 13, 2006

So if Canada and the USA decided to enter into a superstate agreement how could it be governed? Do we retain a Prime Minister and do you retain a President with some form of Superior Administration at the top of the pile?

It does not matter. Keep them both. Just reduce (or eliminate!) their power.

The first question to ask is:

What powers do you want to attribute to the Super Decider of the entire land?

Jerry J. Fortin · July 13, 2006

Gads! The Queen, yikes! Even worse yet nobody at all! Why not a direct democracy where the leadership was effectively hamstrung by public opinion?

jbg · July 14, 2006

Gads! The Queen, yikes! Even worse yet nobody at all! Why not a direct democracy where the leadership was effectively hamstrung by public opinion?

I was joking about the Queen ruling but count me as a closet monarchist. Of course, our Constitution forbids any title of nobiliity.

Aren't you, on your other board, PA, a supporter of an independent Royal Dominion of Alberta?

theloniusfleabag · July 14, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

I have come to learn from other active members that I am not the first anarchist to push the principle of freedom.

Indeed, perhaps you could dust off the old arguments, because I think that you would see that even the staunchest libertarian still believes in arbitrary laws, though some aregue that these laws are 'natural'.

As to Mr. Fortin's question,

So if Canada and the USA decided to enter into a superstate agreement how could it be governed? Do we retain a Prime Minister and do you retain a President with some form of Superior Administration at the top of the pile?

Which goes well with yours...

What powers do you want to attribute to the Super Decider of the entire land?

the answer is that the stronger will seek to dominate the weaker. They would either have to merge wholly, or remain seperate entities.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 14, 2006

The last thing I would choose to support is a King!

I favor a republic, a nice tri-cameral system with at least the hope of democracy available to the public.

Charles Anthony · July 14, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,
I have come to learn from other active members that I am not the first anarchist to push the principle of freedom.
Indeed, perhaps you could dust off the old arguments,

There would not be a whole lot to add except that...

because I think that you would see that even the staunchest libertarian still believes in arbitrary laws, though some aregue that these laws are 'natural'.

...therein lies its universality. The reductionist thinking behind it minimizes subjectivity and baggage that comes with a lot of religions.

Whereas a lot of cultures see "the golden rule" as a natural law and simply take it for granted, true anarchism renders it into a philosophy by minimizing subjectivity and incorporating reasoning.

At its very finest, indeed, hairs must be split and a sense of arbitrariness comes out. However, those same hairs rarely get split in most other political philosophies which steamroll over human rights. Whether we choose to accept the discipline of following it or not, understanding true anarchism provides a baseline upon which human transgressions become more difficult to conceal.

So if Canada and the USA decided to enter into a superstate agreement how could it be governed? Do we retain a Prime Minister and do you retain a President with some form of Superior Administration at the top of the pile?
Which goes well with yours...
What powers do you want to attribute to the Super Decider of the entire land?
the answer is that the stronger will seek to dominate the weaker.

I believe reality is even more violent. I believe the weak will also seek to gang up and dominate anybody they smother.

For this reason, I do not believe anarchy is stable: there are too many evil people and lazy people.

Continuing with the original question, I ask: what powers? is addressed to the people who wish to construct a "government" ruling over people. A population is governed more on the righteous side (as opposed to the tyrannical side) of the scale when their domination has less power over them. That conclusion is derived from using anarchy as a baseline even though anarchy may never be achieved nor stabilized.

I think of anarchy as absolute zero on a thermometer: never physically attainable but the starting point from which to objectively measure the heat.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 15, 2006

Direct Democracy, let the politicians propose legislation and let the citizens decide whether or not to accept it.

theloniusfleabag · July 16, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

I think of anarchy as absolute zero on a thermometer: never physically attainable but the starting point from which to objectively measure the heat.

A good analogy, but it also must be seen as zero on a 'moral thermometer'.

Continuing with the original question, I ask: what powers? is addressed to the people who wish to construct a "government" ruling over people. A population is governed more on the righteous side (as opposed to the tyrannical side) of the scale when their domination has less power over them. That conclusion is derived from using anarchy as a baseline even though anarchy may never be achieved nor stabilized

Well, I admit to not answering your original question. It is a tough one, because any sort of law (or consequence) must have enforceable punishment for non-compliance. Hugo (the board's previous 'most staunch anarchist') argued that all forms of punishment were 'unfair force', and that ostracism/voluntary punishment were the only acceptable solutions. I must say that it is not feasible to rely on 'self-policing' in the real world because

there are too many evil people and lazy people.

I envision (with myself in charge, of course )a 'dictatorial democracy', with one person elected to be in charge of selecting the democratic questions to be put to the people, and for them to vote on them and to enact them.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 16, 2006

The top of the political food chain isn't important to me. Down here at the bottom link citizens would like to have a say in how things are going to get done. Direct democracy is the only way to go from that perspective, let the politicians proposes and let the people decide, we rule..........

theloniusfleabag · July 17, 2006

Dear Charles Anthony,

I suppose a question I must ask is "To which form of 'leadership' would an libertarian anarchist most prefer to acquiesce?"

Charles Anthony · July 17, 2006

The top of the political food chain isn't important to me. Down here at the bottom link citizens would like to have a say in how things are going to get done.

I agree with the motives.

Direct democracy is the only way to go from that perspective, let the politicians proposes and let the people decide, we rule..........

But how do the mechanics of "direct democracy" work to reduce power from the politicians?

I suppose a question I must ask is "To which form of 'leadership' would an libertarian anarchist most prefer to acquiesce?"

Now, I will bite because...

Jerry J. Fortin · July 17, 2006

Look at the Swiss model. There are two kinds citizen interaction with government. One takes place or can take place in the form of a citizens initiative, where a sufficient amount of public support can force the government ot legislate on a specific concern of the public, the second form does or can take place after legislation has been created bu government, that is referendum, of which there are two kinds both compulsory and optional. Most legislation lawmakers create comes under one category or the other. Some legislation is not subject to public ratification, but most is.

So when citizens can both initiate legislation and negate legislation by democratic means the power of the lawmakers is curtailed.

geoffrey · July 31, 2006

That Swiss example is dangerous. A majority group could force the governemnt to have the minority give them all their money through a petition no? It's an extreme example, but majority tyranny isn't exactly a concept most societies want to revisit.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 31, 2006

That Swiss example is dangerous. A majority group could force the governemnt to have the minority give them all their money through a petition no? It's an extreme example, but majority tyranny isn't exactly a concept most societies want to revisit.

Dangerous? These people have one of the highest standard of living ratings in the world. I think you need to educate and trust your children. You need to help and trust your neigbor. You need to speak your mind and oppose what you believe to be wrong. If you do this, and everyone else does this, then you have started to work toward being able to trust your society to protect you. This is what the Swiss have done. They have been doing it this way for more than one hundred years now. They have abstained from wars but been there when it was needed with humanitarian help. Their system works for them. Nobody has done anything stupid, because the popuation at large will not allow it. The same could apply here.

US Citizen · August 27, 2006

Haven't been here for awhile...been busy trying to get all incumbents voted out come November...A HARD job to be sure, but necessary...

At any rate, the NAU will become a reality, regardless of all the rhetoric being spouted in the US and Canada. Here is a thought for you all...We (the American politicians and Big Business...not me personally...I ABHOR the thought of the loss of American sovereignty...) are coming after your water. Our talk radio shows are just now beginning to see this. Water futures are becoming the next BIG THING. Better keep your eyes open and your politicians honest. Don't wait too long, as we did here in the US!

Here is just one link that I have found...will be doing more research. This link is from 2002, updated this year.

http://www.waterbank.com/Newsletters/nws42.htm

thoughts?

jbg · August 27, 2006

This logic would have led to all the colonies leaving Britain as part of the Revolutionary War. Didn't happen then, doubt it will happen now.

August1991 · August 27, 2006

I posted above in this thread this image.

I just discovered an even more fascinating movie, based on flight data of planes flying over North America during a 24 hour period, that illustrates well the nature of our continent. You can clearly see Hawaii, Edmonton, Montreal and the flights into and out of the continent. Each point reresents hundreds of people moving from one place to another.

Smbolically, our continent (indeed the world) is a series of points connecting with other points. Why would anyone want to draw an arbitrary line and make it difficult for people to get in touch with one another across that line?

US Citizen · August 27, 2006

what about this chick and the Canadian Action Party? Sounds to me like she knows what the H**L is going on...I hope you people support this group...

www.awakeandarise.org

www.canadianactionparty.ca

Charles Anthony · August 27, 2006

Sounds to me like she knows what the H**L is going on...

She sounds like a bad soap-opera actress reading from a cue card and wearing contact lenses for the first time in her life.

Why would anyone want to draw an arbitrary line and make it difficult for people to get in touch with one another across that line?

I know of only two ways to eliminate such an arbitrary line: one great big state or no state at all. Choose your poison.

jbg · August 28, 2006

Sounds to me like she knows what the H**L is going on...
She sounds like a bad soap-opera actress reading from a cue card and wearing contact lenses for the first time in her life.

Describes that video to a "t".

US Citizen · August 28, 2006

Sounds to me like she knows what the H**L is going on...
She sounds like a bad soap-opera actress reading from a cue card and wearing contact lenses for the first time in her life.

Describes that video to a "t".

Yeah, but do you AGREE with what she had to say?

jbg · August 28, 2006

Sounds to me like she knows what the H**L is going on...
She sounds like a bad soap-opera actress reading from a cue card and wearing contact lenses for the first time in her life.

Describes that video to a "t".

Yeah, but do you AGREE with what she had to say?

I said above I consider it most unlikely. But both countries are democracies, and I see it as entirely possible that people that have similar cultures, roughly similar languages, and roughly similar histories and extensive blood, business and marital ties could consider having one federal government cheaper than having two.

GostHacked · August 29, 2006

Democracy? I am finding myself in a hard place trying to actually describe democracy and what kind of democracy we have in Canada and the US. It is not about democracy. It is more about economic survival on the world stage. Also I feel that the US is pushing this kind of thing because of Canada's natural resources. Water being a major issue. Hell we diverted a whole river so California can actually have water.

The lady in that video speaks volumes. And she is right. Stop being to f*cking complacent in regards to your government. They work for you, not the other way around. If they are not doing a good job, or even the right job, then that needs to be addressed. NAFTA made our economies more intertwined, simple as that, and that lady says so. You can see it all around you. Amalgamating the security and armed forces will be the next step. Now that the intertwined economy exists, we need intertwined security to protet those interests.

Personaly I don't like it. I don't beleive we need more integration with the US, quite the opposite.

I said above I consider it most unlikely. But both countries are democracies, and I see it as entirely possible that people that have similar cultures, roughly similar languages, and roughly similar histories and extensive blood, business and marital ties could consider having one federal government cheaper than having two.

Oh hell no. Then what system would be adopted? The Canadian or the US government system. With one large government the prospect of corruption is worse than what you already see. If that was the case then the whole government on both sides need to be completely revamped from top to bottom.