The EU is doing fine, what's so bad about the NAU?

Cali4RonPaul said:
As a member of the business community I do see many benefits in a NAU, I would no longer have to pay customs clearing charges to Toronto, and the appreciating Canadian dollar would be stopped. Monetary union would benefit both our countries.. As far as Mexico a more prosperous and secure southern neighbor would mean less immigration to the USA, people generally live and stay where they are born.

It would also open up the way for people like myself to own beach property in Mexicos excellent tropical locations..
Click to expand...

that's what I'm wondering. Not to mention, don't get all bunched about global elites and stuff, but I've always wondered what would be the benefit to a global currency. Fact of the matter is, uniform trade laws are in the constitution and it's awesome. why wouldn't we want to extend that, if we could do so while maintaining liberty.

now days, I think the whole world needs to just legalize any form of currency, like RP wants to do in America.
 
Rhys said:
that's what I'm wondering. Not to mention, don't get all bunched about global elites and stuff, but I've always wondered what would be the benefit to a global currency. Fact of the matter is, uniform trade laws are in the constitution and it's awesome. why wouldn't we want to extend that, if we could do so while maintaining liberty.

now days, I think the whole world needs to just legalize any form of currency, like RP wants to do in America.
Click to expand...

Speaking from experience, it has been extremely frustrating to sell products and services to many countries because of their protectionist measures.. The only way I see to mitigate this is that these countries are made to submit to jurisdiction in line with our interests in a global organization..
 
Last edited:
Verad said:
If the provinces of Canada and the divisions of Mexico (didn't learn as much about Mexico) were to secede from their respective countries and then apply for statehood to the US, that would be one thing, and I don't believe that there would be much of a problem if that were to happen.

However, the method for creating a political and economic union similar to the EU is that you add a layer of bureaucracy on top of what we have now with officials that are appointed to their positions of power, and who don't answer to citizens. For instance, in the EU, some resolutions that are unpopular among EU citizens are strong-armed into law by these bureaucrats. Since these bureaucrats tend to have less respect, sometimes much less respect, for the sovereignty of each nation (because they are not bound to the laws of the member states), legislation can be forcibly passed in order to "harmonize" the laws among the member states.

So, imagine if we were in such a union with Canada and Mexico. The government officials in charge, not being bound to the Constitution, could overwrite just about anything involved, with no method for it to be overturned by any nations court system (re. US Supreme Court), then they would have the ability, for instance, to completely ban firearms, or to redefine the rights of accused persons, or the right to assemble and petition the government, or to limit freedom of speech.

The inherent problem involved here is the flaw that this style of government requires "good" political officials to be in government. However, it is obvious that politicians, for the most part, are anything but "good." The potential for the government to become a tyranny of sorts (whether by smaller nations bullying larger nations, or by the other appointed officials to grab too much power for themselves). Hope this helps. Let me know if I need to try to clarify anything.
Click to expand...

I'm sold on that argument.

What do you think of this:

i've been floating the idea of inviting the world into the United States. I understand our Constitution isn't exactly followed now, so why would it with a much larger union... but....

that's not the problem. the larger and more diverse the union, the more likley states would be to succeed if the Washington got too involved.

the problem is, convincing anyone that i'm not crazy and not trying to take over the world.

anyway, it's just a thought that I've never concluded.
 
Cali4RonPaul said:
For Example china's currency is not a free market currency, it is pegged and its fundamentals are dictated by the chinese government.. Much success was made by the WTO forcing china to accept foreign made automotive parts from Canada the USA etc. to be used in their cars, removing barriers.
Click to expand...

I think the WTO started half the problem with china. either them or the IMF... i dunno anyone else who could transfer that much debt. without all our debt to china and therebye forcing us to work with them, we wouldn't have the trouble i don't think
 
Rhys said:
I think the WTO started half the problem with china. either them or the IMF... i dunno anyone else who could transfer that much debt. without all our debt to china and therebye forcing us to work with them, we wouldn't have the trouble i don't think
Click to expand...

Well you could also argue that under a global union it wouldnt matter if all our debt went to china, because we would not think of china as independent, we would all share the same currency.. so there would be no threat. China has billions of people it will be an immense opportunity for our economy to cater to them as we are especially strong in the services arena.
 
Cali4RonPaul said:
Well you could also argue that under a global union it wouldnt matter if all our debt went to china, because we would not think of china as independent, we would all share the same currency.. so there would be no threat. China has billions of people it will be an immense opportunity for our economy to cater to them as we are especially strong in the services arena.
Click to expand...

werd.

now i gotta think more.
 
Cali4RonPaul: "Well you could also argue that under a global union it wouldnt matter if all our debt went to china, because we would not think of china as independent, we would all share the same currency.. so there would be no threat." ... wow.. can I have some of that crack. That must be some good stuff.
 
Rhys said:
I'm sold on that argument.

What do you think of this:

i've been floating the idea of inviting the world into the United States. I understand our Constitution isn't exactly followed now, so why would it with a much larger union... but....

that's not the problem. the larger and more diverse the union, the more likley states would be to succeed if the Washington got too involved.

the problem is, convincing anyone that i'm not crazy and not trying to take over the world.

anyway, it's just a thought that I've never concluded.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea, one I've actually mused about once or twice (when I was younger, I wondered why Puerto Rico didn't just give in and apply for statehood).

One of the problems I'm seeing here is mainly cultural. We tend to have an egotistic view of ourselves and how great we are, which is why people are generally easily talked into voting for "making the world safe for democracy," "nation building," "foreign aid," and "removing dictators to establish 'democracy,'" and many people I would guess do not want to have any part of this. In addition, many folks in other countries have developed the idea that most Americans are idiots (I've always been placed into focused groups of intellectuals for "Accelerated classes," so I cannot know how much truth is behind this perception), and would probably see it as a step backwards to join the US. I'm not trying to bash the US, but I'm trying to call it as I see it (remember that as an American myself, I can only make educated guesses as to why others would be against this, not knowing many folks outside the US).

Another problem is political ideology. People will tend to be suspicious of other political ideologies, which is painfully obvious even here, where libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are dismissed as crazy or kooky. This would be greatly magnified if, say, communist China or even a small part of it were to attempt to join the US (the improbability of this idea is making me grin). What would need to happen for such a merger to work? Would China be forced to become more like the US? Would the US have to become more like China? Unless states' rights were reaffirmed, such a merger would be completely implausible without a significant change in the way people live.

The last problem that I can see at this moment is the US citizen reaction. Imagine if the last example were to come to fruition, and we suddenly had over one billion new citizens. Their population would give them more Representatives in the house than all of our current states combined. We would still have the Senate to check this imbalance, but this would make the federal government very... interesting. :) The question is, how would a new balance of populations affect our government and the ideologies within the system, and would the current American citizens be happy with this arrangement?

I know that my example was pretty bizarre, but I felt the contrast would be illuminating. I hope you're having as much fun reading my crazy musings as I am writing them. :P
 
Rhys said:
Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

Other than global communism, that is. I mean, in theory, isn't an NAU just the next step to a United States? Didn't everyone think we were crazy for thinking our "more perfect union" would work?

Are we going overboard on Federalism?
Click to expand...

I'm only responding because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. The EU and Euro are doing great? Uh, what? No they aren't. Furthermore, those nations that got swept up into the EU were forced to do so against popular will. They voted it down, and then got it anyway. Read up on why there's such resistance to joining the EU in the U.K., and why the UK refuses to switch over to the euro, instead of the British Sterling.

Loss of sovereignty is the beginning of the end. That's the whole point. We don't want or need more government, we need LESS. More liberty, more freedom, more peace, more prosperity. This of course requires greater risk than living in a police state, but then again, you'd be living in a POLICE STATE.

Conglomeration of countries only means a consolidation of power. If you're like, oh...99.99999% of Ron Paul supporters, you probably naturally have repellant feelings towards those who seek power over others. D.C. is seeking to consolidate power, the U.N. is trying to consolidate power, the NAU is a means to consolidate power, etc., etc. The more power someone has over you, the less your life is your own. It's an illusion. We do not need all these people with power over us, whether for our protection or otherwise. Like England didn't need a king who ruled by divine right, the U.S. does not need the NAU, and we certainly do not need the U.N. to have more authority over us. It's the same old shit, again and again, money and power.
 
Oh, duh! I forgot the last, and possibly most important, problem. [Edit: of establishing a larger government by allowing other nation-states apply for US statehood]

Sovereignty and self-determinism for other nation-states. Imagine if we asked Germany to apply for statehood. What kind of response might they have? I'm going to go out on a limb (not even that far, really) and say that they would be greatly angered, and rightly so. They have a wonderful identity, which would be jeopardized by submitting its power and authority to what is now considered a foreign nation (I personally believe that the world would be losing a lot if the German identity were to be overwritten in such a way). In addition, they would be giving up other powers that they have internationally--namely the powers they have through the United Nations. Once again, hope my ramblings help illuminate the matter.
 
Last edited:
It's a sovereignty issue. A union with the socialist government of Canada and the Kleptocracy of Mexico would threaten the free market even more than it already is.

I honestly don't see any way to reverse the growth of government without a revival of free market economics. I really don't know how we can accomplish that. Any ideas?
 
ok, i'm totaly off world government again. I had to entertain the thought.
 
Well I'm late then since your off the bandwagon, but one lady from England posted this here and I copied it in case I needed it later.

I remember her name was Judy from the letter. Maybe she will see this post and comment as well.

Anyone round here ever seen something horrible happen and then a few
> years later see it happening all over again?
> That's where I am living just now.
> In my lifetime I watched England turn from a great nation to a cowed
> city state of the European empire. We have no control of our borders, no
> control of our taxes; no control of our foreign policy - heck, we can't
> even buy a pound of bananas in our supermarkets any mo re because Europe
> says we have to have everything in Kilos.
>
> I have to abide by European employment legislation in my business, I am
> not allowed to work more than 50 hours a week and I MUST have 4 weeks
> paid vacation - even though I already have 15 weeks compulsory vacation
> as an education worker.
>
> I pay 35% of anything I make to the government - then another 8% on top
> of that - then my company pays another 12.8% on top of that for the joy
> of employing me - then I pay $2000 a MONTH in local government tax on a
> very small house - and 17.5% tax on everything I buy - except fuel where
> I pay almost $12 a gallon of which over 80% is tax.
>
> The government or the police watch everything I do via CCTV, my
> financial records are centralized and getting access to the info they
> hold on me costs me $20 and months of letters and calls to find out - if
it it ever arrives.
>
> That's my nightmare and you don't have to care about it. But people, if
> you don't get your fingers out of your ears, eyes, mouths and any other
> orifice you might have them stuck in it will only take you 5 or 10 years
> to end up in the same pile of manure I'm sitting in right now.
>
> I love America - always have - but y'all are not making yourselves real
> popular around the world right now. And the ONLY candidate in this
> election who could do a single thing to get you out of it is Ron Paul.
>
> I know what he has said about priorities; I know what the media has done
> to you; I know people are throwing in the towel on you and things are
> not looking their best.
>
> But the stakes are too high to give up without one hell of a fight. It's
> time to get a long line of people to hold up the flag and keep it
> flying. Go back and listen to the story of the Star Spangled Banner
> again and start piling up the bodies if you have to (figuratively
> speaking!) But you have to fight now to save your nation.
>
> You let it go now and it will be gone forever.
>
> Come on, America. Save yourselves - and save me from watching another
> once great, brave nation go down the pan.
>
> I don't have many answers for you. I'm not a politician. Just think of
> me as a cheerleader from England who loves what you've got and can't
> stand the pain of watching it be stolen from you by a small group of
> lousy politicians and bankers who want to rule the world.


Thanks Judy.
Lest we forget what we still have.
 
Rhys said:
Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

Other than global communism, that is. I mean, in theory, isn't an NAU just the next step to a United States? Didn't everyone think we were crazy for thinking our "more perfect union" would work?

Are we going overboard on Federalism?
Click to expand...

The main problem with the EU is that even if countries dont want it they cannot opt out of it.

Citizens are not allowed to vote on it or if they do and turn it down their vote is overturned or ignored.

Thousands of new laws on businesses. No one understands them including the lawyers. Small businesses cant comply with the paperwork. And the ones that win are large multinational companies. I cant imagine why this is getting rammed down people faces.

Countries like England, Italy, and some Scandinavian countries want out and want to go back to their old money and cant. New countries coming in with weak currencies.

Huge immigration forcing jobs / pay away from people that have been in countries for generations.

It is a nightmare and will get worse.
 
The only way I would support an NAU type of arrangement is if all 94 states/provinces (50 US + 13 Canadian + 31 Mexican) were essentially autonomous and united under an extremely limited Federal Constitutional government. Kind of like what we're supposed to have right now in the US. You would be a citizen of your state not the NAU, but you would have freedom of travel and commerce between all 94 states.
 
All government should be local. I often think even the county level is too much. Why should a city on one side of the Florida peninsula, for example, be able to tell another on the other side what to do, aside from leaving it alone? Governments always have a tendency to usurp liberty, and at least if it's decentralized I'll have an easier time changing it or can move somewhere where freedom is still respected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
  • Featured
The Evolution of Communism
Replies
11
Views
8K
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
This Is a Slow-Motion Nationalization of the Economy
Replies
0
Views
816
PAF
PAF
PAF
L’État, C’est Moi (“I Am the State”).Trumpian Version
Replies
0
Views
66
PAF
PAF
PAF
Donald Trump Agenda47: Rebuilding America’s Depleted Military
Replies
1
Views
314
PAF
PAF
FineSpeech
Steve Bannon: "I will do anything to keep Musk out of the White House"
2 3
Replies
48
Views
8K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top