N.A.U.

[zbarlici]

... oh crap. Well i guess the main reason i posted this thread is because i think the reason behind the North American Union is lack of renewable and non-renewable resources to support continuing growth and expansion of civilisation. If i am right, then it seems that threr are not resources left in USA to support us on our current path, and even the renewable resources are not so renewable, if this NAU pact is for economic reasons.

What will happen 200 years from now when theres no resources left in canada either? I think thats a pretty important question. No question that i enjoy many amenities due to close relationship to the US, but my governmnet has shit for brains as we do not even refine our own oil. We export lumber at shit prices then we are forced to buy at stupid prices.. etc. etc. etc. Put yourself in my shoes

[MirariNefas]

We'll capture some asteroids or mine the ocean floor? 200 years is a long time. We'll be okay, but some political unity will go a long way in helping us get there in an efficient and environmentally sustainable manner.

[Mike Holmes]

Which resource is it that we're supposedly running out of?

Mike

[olivier]

Wouldn't the NAU have to join the Commonwealth?
I imagine the Governor General of Canada's report to the Queen: "Your Majesty, it took 232 years, but my mission is accomplished. The rebels surrendered yesterday."

[Mike Holmes]

And that... would make us part of the EU!!!

New World Order! It's all a plot!

Or maybe just a good long-term goal.

Mike

[MSimon]

Mike,

I fear a Constitutional Convention - We will probably get a 10,000 page document that will screw things up. As imperfect as the one we have is - I'd prefer to stick to it.

[MSimon]

We have plenty of resources in the USA esp oil. Problems is they are off limits politically and with oil prices dropping like a stone (below $50 a bbl today) uneconomical.

BTW all commodity prices are in free fall. That is not a sign of lack of resources.

[Mike Holmes]

Some people fear fusion power, and would all research on it stopped immediately.

OK, maybe your fear is better founded. But it's not like a convention automatically ratifies a constitution. Can't we at least see an effort first, before rejecting it?

Given the polarization on some subjects, I actually find the idea somewhat far-fetched. That is, you'd get several drafts, each of which would have some clauses that were completely objectionable to some party somewhere (like the one with creationism having to be taught in public schools, and the one with animals being given rights to life). Leading to a lack of neccessary consensus to get any one of them passed. Sans a unifying threat like the English Monarchy was to us in the 18th century, any consensus is unlikely.

Perhaps the threat of a world economic meltdown? I think this is definitely in the "get people thinking about it" stage more than anything else.

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

Mike

[KitemanSA]

Greetings All,

A great trilogy which has as a basis the NAU is the Rosinante Trilogy by Gilliland. He posits a union created because the US wants the resources, and a breakup because the cultures are just too different. Religious aspects also play into it.

I think he is on to something there.

[JohnSmith]

Here's a problem. We (canada) can barely hold onto Quebec, BC and the maritime provinces as is. I don't think they'd amalgamate easily...

[MirariNefas]

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

They haven't managed a constitution yet though. All in all, the current EU system is pretty crappy. But I'm rooting for them. Sooner or later they'll get a constitution and expanded federal powers, then, who knows how far they'll go? Maybe someday it'd be something the US could join, with or without an NAU.

[MSimon]

But if Europe can do it, North America certainly can.

They haven't managed a constitution yet though. All in all, the current EU system is pretty crappy. But I'm rooting for them. Sooner or later they'll get a constitution and expanded federal powers, then, who knows how far they'll go? Maybe someday it'd be something the US could join, with or without an NAU.

The Euros are too socialist for Americans. But economically they are starting to move in the American direction. So maybe some day. Like in a hundred years or so.

In any case the best Europeans are voting with their feet. They come to America - the land of opportunity. We are draining Europe's most spirited brains. I have met more than a few British expats in America's high tech industries.

America has always drained Europe's most spirited people. In fact we get the world's most spirited people. It makes us what we are. America is where the cowboys of the world come to find a home. Yeee Haaa!

[djolds1]

America is not a tributary Empire. It is a trading Empire.

That will change. "You want the Global Police (US Military) to provide for your security? You want the Global Financial Agencies to secure your interests? You will pay part of the operating costs."

Operating costs = 120% of operating costs, the rest covering the US deficit, etc.

Did you know that when it comes to peace keeping Americans are preferred over all others by a large margin? Do we screw up from time to time? Sure. We are only human. But over all the plan is working pretty well for those that come in the American orbit. In fact a famous movie "The Mouse That Roared" explains the American plan in a rather humorous way. The thesis? Get conquered by the Americans and get rich. Which is pretty much the way it works.

The US actually tries to live up to its stated ideals 50% of the time. Which is far more than the other candidates for Global Hegemon would do.

Duane

[djolds1]

The solution to this? Put all of the countries on a level playing field, and have wages everywhere balance out in the long run (yes, after dealing with the tough questions of infrastructure and the like).

1) Race to the bottom. Wages in developed areas drop like a stone to match those of Harare, but debt levels are unchanged. Developed areas implode for decades to generations.

2) Labor mobility. Nation states do not allow unrestrained labor mobility. Until the Earth becomes the "United Earth" of Star Trek, the theoretically preferred wage structure is not possible.

In practice the debate goes on around the level of assault weapons. Few people actually support a ban on all arms (Kitchen knives, anyone?) and few support allowing any weapon (home nuclear defense?). In practice it's pretty reasonable on both sides.

Look at the UK.

Barely 50 years from the Rights of Englishmen to complete pussification wrt self-defence.

2. Multiculturalism/Language. The constitution would have to recognize Spanish as an official language of the union.

The US was multiethnic and monocultural up until 1970. Multiculturalism is about cultural balkanization, and that tears a society to shreds.

Multiculturalism is fatal to the US. The US is a memetic nation. It is not held together by blood and soil, but by a (brief) shared history and common myths. Break that down and it sublimates to gasses. Quickly.

This is, to me, a fait accompli in the US anyhow. We would also have to recognize french, or let Quebec go it's own way. I'm pretty ambivalent there.

That is the result of multiculturalism.

What... we're thinking we want to be able to take away somebody's rights with less than an ammendment?

Amendments are no longer used in the US. That power has been assumed by the Supreme Court.

I find hilarious conservatives who, on one hand, harp about abrogation of their liberties, but then on the other hand, don't want language specifically giving rights to specific groups.

The US still uses the natural law version of rights. These are not enumerated. And the US ideal is still individual rights, not group rights.

With Obama in office you can aruge "what glass ceiling do we need to shatter with specific language?"

Obama is the death of the US Civil Rights industry.

When the Crusade is concluded, the Crusaders are no longer employed.

A black man will be the most powerful person in the world in 2 months. The Crusade is over.

3. Freedom of the Press - we might have to adopt this. Contrary to popular belief, there is no such freedom in the US, but there is in Canada and Mexico.

Mark. Steyn.

Next assertion?

5. Native American rights. These might have to be strengthened in a new constitution, over the US model, as Canada has some specific language, and in Mexico being a Native American means being part of the citizenry by definition.

End the special status and territorial rights. Citizens and that's it.

Or you could make it one of those fancy engineered languages like Esperanto or Interlingua. An easy second language for everyone, even adults, to learn. Then all laws, traffic signs, political debates, ballots, etc, could be done in the common language. Another hard sell, but I think it could help everyone be able to communicate with each other. High school Spanish just doesn't cut it.

Someone read too much scifi as a kid.

[djolds1]

What will happen 200 years from now when theres no resources left in canada either?

If we're not dropping resources down the gravity well from the asteroid belt in 200 years, we deserve to go extinct.

Duane