Why not an American Union?

[TheTexan]

I am asking why someone should be against expanding NAFTA to include central America, the Caribbean, or possibly the entire American continent under a Free Trade Area of the Americas-esque agreement.

I think it's a great idea. Just as long as we still have the right to vote for who becomes Leader of America, I'm all for it.

It'll also make it easier for uniting the other continents into a single, more efficient, government as well. A+ idea.

 

[otherone]

Very well. Are 'smaller', in the geographical sense, empires better than larger ones?
Would you prefer to live in the United States or the German Empire (the Prussian led one in the 19th-20th century)? The former is more decentralized despite being larger in size and population.

I prefer no empire. I see no advantage in expanding the current one.

Just so we're clear, American integration need not mean a larger federal government in term of scope.

What about DC have you observed from the last 200 years that leads you to make such an odd statement?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think it's a great idea. Just as long as we still have the right to vote for who becomes Leader of America Oceania, I'm all for it.

It'll also make it easier for uniting the other continents into a single, more efficient, government as well. A+ idea.

FTFY. ("America" ... psshhht! What a quaintly provincial notion ...)

 

[presence]

A NAFTA investor who alleges that a host government has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may, at its option, have recourse to one of the following arbitral mechanisms:

World Bank
United Nations

[]

panel decisions, are binding as to the particular matter addressed.

https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Defa...language=en-US


Congress has the authority to regulate our trade with foreign powers. UN and World bank have no such "binding" authority.

SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS COMMITTEES: AN OVERVIEW

Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force

to international military action.


The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor such measures.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/


http://siteresources.worldbank.org/E...resJan2011.pdf

I have read the source text of most of the FTA's we're party to in the past two decades.

They all contain provisions for ISDS "Investor State Dispute Resolution"; this means disputes are settled by supranational arbitration panels (typically WTO, World Bank, or UN) and the decisions are BINDING under "International Law" and enforceable by UN actions. No other parties to the dispute have standing in court beside the Corporation making the claim and the infringing State.

US Taxpayers have been forced to pay at least $400,000,000 to international corporations under such settlements and there are 10's of billions currently in litigation against the US.

Prior to the rise of ISDS every trade pact we had with other nations was arbitrated simply between sovereign parties using direct diplomacy or tit for tat actions.

Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.

Yeah until the US is a accused by some foreign nation of "violating" some arbitrary rule and the World Bank fines us trillions and the UN decides to enforce the sanctions with the force of arms.


Fuck that.


"More Free" NEVER involves management by a supranational organization.

The Constititution does NOT allow Congress to cede the authority to exit these agreements to China, Russia, or France; and certainly not to a supranational organization.


The issue with NAFTA, TPP, etal is not the terms and conditions... its is WHO ARBITRATES the violation of the terms and conditions.

Regulation and high tariffs imposed by Congress are FAR BETTER than no regulation and no tariffs imposed by the World Bank.

KORUS FTA

is arbitrated by ICSID which funded by the World Bank.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41779.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...tment_Disputes

KORUS FTA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Korea and is Unconstitutional


Panama TPA

Unless the Parties otherwise agree,
the roster shall include up to seven individuals
who are nationals of each Party and up to six individuals who are not nationals of either Party.


http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/fi...e460_10398.pdf

It allows investors alleging a breach in investment obligations to seek binding arbitration against the state through the dispute settlement mechanism defined in the

BINDING arbitration against the state


http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32540.pdf

Panama TPA arbitration is BINDING supranational authority over US trade with Panama and is Unconstitutional


Columbia TPA

Chapter Ten provides a mechanism for an investor of a Party to submit to BINDING international arbitration claim for damages against the other Party.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112srpt222.htm


ALL of these "free trade agreements" and "trade promotion agreements" subvert national soveriegnty.


Congress should never be bound by a supranational authority to subvert is constitutional duty to regulate trade.

"lower trade barriers" are inherently good, are inherently libertarian, are inherently pro freedom...

but not if they come at the cost of loss of soveriegnty



"The opposition to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) rights is a case in point.

ISDS has been a feature of nearly all US-backed trade agreements

and many of Australia's free trade agreements. It is similar to rights granted in bilateral investment treaties

which enable commercial entities
to initiate international arbitration

if provisions for freedom to invest are not respected.


"If the TPP -- and by extension a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
which is now being considered by APEC -- is to succeed,
ISDS is an essential part of this architecture."

http://www.chinamoneynetwork.com/201...rade-agreement


"A comprehensive, rules-based system has been the key to the success of the WTO's architecture,"

[]

"It's vital that this be continued in the TPP."





THAT my friends is what this is all about.


Its not about "free trade"; its about giving the WTO, World Bank, and UN authority to override what our Constitution says is Congress' duty alone.



ISDS
Revolution is Action upon Revelation!

Originally Posted by idiom

Okay, try this, New Zealand has basically no tariffs on anything. Whats in it for us? From what I have seen NZ ends up becoming a Vassal state of the US.
Rather than the US giving up sovereignty, on balance it will basically steal it from the other signatories.
Its Imperialism without bullets.

Doubtless that New Zealand is a vassal state. The thing that most people miss: The US is a vassal state as well.



Contract by contract... each binding under "International Law", we're all bowing to this flag:

Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative

I don't know. I'm undecided, but I think

there's a libertarian case to be made for supporting these "free trade agreements" because they lower or eliminate tariffs

Similarly...

there's a right-to-life case to be made for a global ban on abortion where violators will face a United Nations military tribunal

So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty

Posted: May 2, 2014 | Author: insidejbs | Filed under: Uncategorized |Leave a comment

So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty

by JBS President John F. McManus



A friend who favors free trade agreements (such as those now being negotiated by U.S. officials and their European and Pacific Rim counterparts) insists that these “partnerships” pose no threat to our nation’s sovereignty. He likens the proposed agreements to the beneficial free trade arrangement existing among our 50 states. But, without him realizing it, my friend’s argument actually made the case for my real concerns about such agreements.

In 1955, Dow Chemical executive Lewis Lloyd wrote a book calling for protectionism. Formerly a solid cheerleader for free trade, he found through experience that, if free trade among nations is actually conducted — such as what exists among our 50 states — eight conditions must be present. And the final of his eight conditions was the need for

“world government” and a loss of sovereignty.


In his Tariffs: The Case For Protection, Dr. Lloyd stated that there must be comparable taxes, a single monetary system, uniform business laws, similar business ethics, freedom of movement by workers from place to place, freedom from the threat of war, and an overseeing world government.


All of what Lloyd saw as necessary can be found in the state-to-state relationships within the United States — except a world government. Here, unencumbered trade is regulated by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and there’s no loss of national sovereignty. Should free trade be established nation-to-nation, claimed Dr. Lloyd, there would be a need for an overall governing body with a superior constitution superseding the government structure established in each nation. In other words, there would be a need for a world government superior to each national government and it would function just as our own federal government does vis-à-vis the states. But the national sovereignty of the nations involved in this free trade would have been canceled.


Consider the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), two pacts that U.S. leaders are now hammering out with equivalent foreign officials. Approval of the TTIP would tie the U.S. with the EU that was sold to Europe’s mostly unsuspecting national leaders as a pact designed merely to enhance trade. But it has become dominant over its 28 formerly independent nations. Consider: In 2003, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus warned that the EU was leading to “no more sovereign states in Europe.” In 2004, EU leaders proposed an overall constitution which claimed that it “shall have primacy over the law of member states.” In 2004, a leader of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party stated that the EU “has turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.” And in 2007, former German President Roman Herzog lamented that “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany stemmed from Brussels.” The EU has become a super government dominating Europe’s once-sovereign nations.
Should Senate ratification of the TTIP be accomplished, the U.S. will have duplicated Europe’s catastrophic blunder and essentially joined the EU, losing its national sovereignty in the process. Ratification of the TPP would likewise be a huge mistake, and lead to a corresponding loss of U.S. national sovereignty. But the interesting point here is that the beneficial state-to-state relationships within our nation do not support my friend’s claim that nation-to-nation free trade agreements will be similarly beneficial. They would instead constitute a severe dilution of national sovereignty, as the EU has accomplished in Europe. The relationships generated by so-called “free trade agreements” prove that sovereignty will be lost. Americans should let their representatives and senators know that free trade partnerships must be rejected, along with rejecting Trade Promotion Authority that would facilitate congressional passage of any such free trade partnerships.

http://insidejbs.org/2014/05/02/so-c...s-sovereignty/

This diary is detailed and technical. It's intended to provide an illustration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a feature of the TPP and TTIP free-trade agreements.


[]


the most important lesson to be learned from the case is this:

The tribunal didn’t issue the initial ruling on the matter. It's decision came after the decision of Ecuador’s Supreme Court. The tribunal knew that a decision had already been made by the sovereign court of Ecuador and it inserted itself into the decision and overruled it. By doing so, it pushed the boundaries of the ISDS process beyond the established definition.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...en-sovereignty

Oregon Legislators Warn of Trade Deal’s Threat to State Sovereignty

Posted on August 31, 2010 by CTC



For Immediate Release

Tuesday, August 31, 2010


Bipartisan Group of Legislators Ask Sen. Wyden to Defend Oregon Laws from Attack in International Tribunals

The Korea Free Trade Agreement Poses Serious Threat to State Sovereignty



Salem, Ore. — A bipartisan group of Oregon State Legislators sent U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter today urging him to use his position as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade to strip provisions from a pending trade agreement that threaten to expose Oregon laws to attack in international tribunals.


According to the letter, the pending Korea Free Trade Agreement “includes


investor-to-state enforcement mechanisms


that enable foreign corporations to directly challenge American laws, regulations and even court decisions as trade violations through international tribunals that completely circumvent the U.S. judicial system.”

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/ore...e-sovereignty/

‘Free’ Trade and the Sovereignty Squeeze

Mercantilism in trade agreement rules-setting makes weaker economies slaves to the interests of economic hegemons.

By Ji Xianbai
October 28, 2014




The U.S.–Peru FTA (PTPA) marks the very first success of Washington’s attempts to subordinate other countries’ sovereignty to its own national interest by squeezing non-trade-related provisions into a bilateral trade liberalization agreement and overriding foreign national laws. To provide a level playing field for American companies, the PTPA lays out detailed measures that Peru is obliged to take to govern its forest sector. The Forest Annex of the PTPA requires Peru to set up an independent forestry oversight body and even enact new Forestry and Wildlife Laws to legalize key provisions of PTPA. The U.S.–Colombia FTA (CTPA)’s labor provisions represent an “even more blatant assault on another country’s sovereignty.” Meanwhile, Colombia was forced to agree to establish a dedicated labor ministry; endorse legislations outlawing interference in the exercise of labor rights; double the size of its labor inspectorate; and set up a phone hotline and an internet-based system to deal with labor complaints. Examples of similar provisions abound: Don’t forget that the U.S.-Panama FTA has “helped” revamp Panama’s tax policy on behalf of Panamanians.


In a similarly coercive fashion, the EU has never been shy of imposing its own will on other countries in trade. Last week, a November 2011 diplomatic cable between Ecuador’s then-ambassador in Brussels, Fernando Yepez Lasso, and the Ecuadorian vice minister for Foreign Relations, Kintto Lucas Lopez, was leaked. The confidential communication suggests that Ecuador was “bullied into a EU trade agreement.” Denouncing it as “biased,” Ecuador was convinced the agenda was set to prioritize the trade liberalization component of the agreement that was able to accrue immediate gains to the EU over two other pillars of the EU-Andean Association Agreement, namely, an economic cooperation agreement and a forum for political dialogue, which were of more long-term significance to Andean states. So Ecuador pulled out of the talks in 2009. To compel Ecuador to return to the negotiating table, the EU resorted to stark threats of economic isolation as the Ambassador admitted in the cable that “[t]he proposal of the European Commission, which includes criteria that could exclude Ecuador from the preferences framework [...], is an element of pressure on Ecuador to join the free trade agreement.” Afraid of being left out and sustaining a $1.2 billion loss to its economy if trade ties with EU was disconnected, the Ecuador government crumbled and finally inked the agreement on July 17. This painful experience has taught Ecuador a lesson that what governs trade negotiations is the law of the jungle and prompted Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa to comment in an interview after signing the FTA that free trade “is the most anti-historical thing that exists; almost no developed country used it.”



​

http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/free-...ignty-squeeze/​

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not proposing a currency union, although several Latin American countries use the US dollar. Many others peg their currency to the dollar. I personally favor de-nationalizing currencies as suggested by Hayek.

For the sake of argument though let us assume that American integration came along with an 'Amero' common currency. This might lead to greater financial stability for Latin America. The Federal Reserve sucks, but relative to other central banks it actually doesn't inflate our currency that much. I'm not saying that inflation isn't a serious issue. I'm saying that I would much rather have my currency controlled by the Fed than the Argentinian central bank.

Again, the European union financial crisis has apparently gone right over your head. Argentinian financial stability is not my concern. What I don't what to have happen is for Argentinian financial instability to threaten U.S. financial stability. And your proposal, which you haven't even really laid out, would pretty much guarantee less financial stability for the United States. That alone is enough for any sane person to be against the idea. And you've totally ignored my counterpoint to your false comparison of the original 13 colonies eventually becoming a union to various countries with no common history like the 13 colonies had becoming a union and you've also ignored the civil war issue that happened from economic differences between those similar countries.

 

[staerker]

Elaborate on your argument. Would you prefer one layer of government? Would you prefer if state governments were abolished and only the feds existed? Or do you think two layers is best? Why?

(Please note my initial post: I'm not looking to hear AnCap arguments, so please don't respond with "I'd rather have no layers!".)

If you are not open to those arguments, you haven't thoroughly pressed yourself into the philosophical issues. A lot of people around here have outgrown the notion of a State, and rightly so. It is one of the few logically consistent (mainstream) positions, if one is initially slanted towards libertarianism.

 

[Michelangelo]

If you are not open to those arguments, you haven't thoroughly pressed yourself into the philosophical issues. A lot of people around here have outgrown the notion of a State, and rightly so. It is one of the few logically consistent (mainstream) positions, if one is initially slanted towards libertarianism.

I'm an ancap. Hence why I don't have any interest in hearing those arguments. If there was a button that one could push and abolish the state I would push it instantly.

One can be an ancap and still prefer different sorts of states. It is not a betrayal of ancap principles to state that it is preferable to live under the United States than the sub-saharan African states or China (PRC).

(1) Ancap world > (2) USA > (3) China-PRC > (4) North Korea etc. etc.

(1) isn't possible in the short term. The idea of the state is ingrained in humanity and even moderate supporters of free markets are seen as radicals. We should strive to build a world in which (1) exists, but in the meantime there is nothing wrong about stating preference for (2) over (3) or (4).

Again, the European union financial crisis has apparently gone right over your head. Argentinian financial stability is not my concern. What I don't what to have happen is for Argentinian financial instability to threaten U.S. financial stability. And your proposal, which you haven't even really laid out, would pretty much guarantee less financial stability for the United States. That alone is enough for any sane person to be against the idea. And you've totally ignored my counterpoint to your false comparison of the original 13 colonies eventually becoming a union to various countries with no common history like the 13 colonies had becoming a union and you've also ignored the civil war issue that happened from economic differences between those similar countries.

I haven't ignored your concerns. I've made it clear that there are limits to integration. Having countries like Pakistan join the United States would be more trouble than it is worth. It is less clear to me though that the costs outweigh the benefits when it comes to Anglo-America or the rest of the American countries.

Canada is an English-speaking common law country descended from the British Empire. As is Jamaica, the Bahamas, and the rest of thee British West Indies. Why not offer the possibility of statehood to these places?

Also it is unclear to me why you think why Argentina would somehow bring financial instability to the US. If Argentina adopted the US dollar it would become financially stable as its government would not be able to inflate. Argentina would, like California* and other US states with fiscal problems, have to begin reforming.

*Contrary to popular conception California has become reforming its fiscal policy under Gov. Brown's administration. It'd be better if that god awful bullet train was canceled, but the fiscal situation in California is much better today than a few years ago. Is it perfect? God no. But marginal improvemenets are improvements all the same.

I prefer no empire. I see no advantage in expanding the current one.

What about DC have you observed from the last 200 years that leads you to make such an odd statement?

See the above. Ancap world be great. It isn't an option in our lifetimes though. Between existing choices what do you choose?

We haven't added a state in half a century. Our physical territory hasn't grown in a longer time frame - its actually shrunken when we consider the fact that Nicaragua, the Philippines, and other colonial possessions have been granted independence. Despite actually decreasing in size the federal government have grown in jurisdictional size. The claim was made that physical enlargement is positively correlated with an increase in jurisdictional size. My claim is that no correlation exists. It is possible to have an oppressive totalitarian state that is small (e.g. Cuba, North Korea) or a large (relatively*) classical liberal like the United States.

*I emphasize the term relatively. The federal government sucks, but the US is still a free society compared to its competitors abroad.

As opposed to what? "Costlessly" large non-independent polities?

I don't pretend that a NAU would be costless. There would be increased transaction costs in getting everyone to agree to decisions. I'm not arguing in favor of a world government here. I am arguing in favor of greater integration of the American nations in the form of free trade (in goods and people) and a common defense pact.

It would simply be discarded...not that it already isn't without a union. Another one would be drafted for the union, no doubt. The European union is a failure, just ask the Irish.

When Texas joined the bill of rights wasn't touched. Let us remember that Texas at its time was dominated by Catholics and culturally different from the rest of the union. The midwest is populated largely by descendants of Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, etc etc. These are hardly people similar in descent to the Anglos that settled the original colonies. Again, the bill of rights was not touched when the midwestern states joined the US.

It is unclear why you think adding new states to the US would radically change the constitution.

Then you obviously really have no interest at all in any of my arguments. Who cares? <shrug>

See above. I'm an ancap and therefore have no interest in hearing an ancap argument. Even if you disagree with me I wish for you to engage with me. Consider it an act of playing the devil's advocate. If you have confident in your beliefs then you should not be concerned with challenging yourself by countering me.

I apologize if I sound as if I don't care about your thoughts. To the degree that I have sounded unnecessarily hostile I sincerely ask for forgiveness.

Now I ask again. How many layers of government do you think is optimal? Would you truly wish to have a single layer of government? It seems to me that two or three would be preferable, if only to get the two layers of government to fight themselves. One may not 'win against townhall', if I might use that old saying, but it is quite possible to pit townhall against the state capital and win. There is also a cost of having too many layers of government, but it is unclear what the optimal amount is. Is it three? Two? Seven?

 

[otherone]

See the above. Ancap world be great. It isn't an option in our lifetimes though. Between existing choices what do you choose?

A constitutional minarchy.
And nothing that you, I, or anyone else proposes is an option in our lifetime, for reasons that would be exacerbated by a Pan-American empire.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm an ancap. Hence why I don't have any interest in hearing those arguments. If there was a button that one could push and abolish the state I would push it instantly.

One can be an ancap and still prefer different sorts of states. It is not a betrayal of ancap principles to state that it is preferable to live under the United States than the sub-saharan African states or China (PRC).

...
I haven't ignored your concerns. I've made it clear that there are limits to integration. Having countries like Pakistan join the United States would be more trouble than it is worth. It is less clear to me though that the costs outweigh the benefits when it comes to Anglo-America or the rest of the American countries.

Canada is an English-speaking common law country descended from the British Empire. As is Jamaica, the Bahamas, and the rest of thee British West Indies. Why not offer the possibility of statehood to these places?

Also it is unclear to me why you think why Argentina would somehow bring financial instability to the US. If Argentina adopted the US dollar it would become financially stable as its government would not be able to inflate. Argentina would, like California* and other US states with fiscal problems, have to begin reforming.

*Contrary to popular conception California has become reforming its fiscal policy under Gov. Brown's administration. It'd be better if that god awful bullet train was canceled, but the fiscal situation in California is much better today than a few years ago. Is it perfect? God no. But marginal improvemenets are improvements all the same.

I'm not sure at all why an ancap would be pushing for more government. That said, if you can't figure out how Greece is bringing down the rest of Europe then I'm not sure why you're even trying to have a conversation on the subject. And as for the West Indies, they're already part of the British Common Wealth, unless you're talking about the U.S. Virgin Islands which are already integrated into the U.S. empire.

 

[Michelangelo]

A constitutional minarchy.
And nothing that you, I, or anyone else proposes is an option in our lifetime, for reasons that would be exacerbated by a Pan-American empire.

Adding new states to the US is both feasible within our lifetimes and keeping with our tradition.

I'm not sure at all why an ancap would be pushing for more government. That said, if you can't figure out how Greece is bringing down the rest of Europe then I'm not sure why you're even trying to have a conversation on the subject. And as for the West Indies, they're already part of the British Common Wealth, unless you're talking about the U.S. Virgin Islands which are already integrated into the U.S. empire.

Who said I'm pushing for more government?

As I've said several times, American integration would likely decrease the size of government:

*Free trade among the American countries. Trade is always good.

*A common defense pact among the American countries. This already exists as part of the OAS, and was actually used in WW2 by the USA to get the rest of the Americas to declare war on the Axis. If better institutionalized we could save on defense costs.

*If welfare programs were expanded to 'others' then traditional proponents of these policies would try to reform the system in order to de-federalize welfare programs. Redistribution schemes work partially because Americans are okay, to an extent, with providing welfare to people they recognize as similar to themselves. Greater diversity however would cause them to become resentful of providing welfare to 'others'. An American might tolerate subsidizing a fellow American, but the thought of a Quebecer getting some of that dole? Why that is unthinkable!

There are limits to integration. Americans underestimate how similar they are to their fellow Americans (in the continental sense). Latin America speaks Spanish, and on occasion Portuguese, but it should not be forgotten that it is inhabited by republican countries founded on classical liberal principles. Liberty has a series of books exploring the classical liberal tradition in Latin America; Liberty in Mexico and Liberal Thought in Argentina. As far as a common history and culture go our American brethren are similar enough that a union could work, but foreign-looking enough that federal welfare programs would be unpopular.

 

[jmdrake]

Adding new states to the US is both feasible within our lifetimes and keeping with our tradition.

Who said I'm pushing for more government?

As I've said several times, American integration would likely decrease the size of government:

And so if you say that eating 10 Dairy Queen blizzards per day will likely decrease the size of your waistline would that make it true? You already admitted that your proposal adds another layer of government. You have given no explanation as to how it would decrease the size of government.

*Free trade among the American countries. Trade is always good.

Dairy Queen blizzards have calcium in them. Calcium is always good. Therefore eat 10 a day and be healthy. NAFTA hasn't been good for the U.S., Canada or Mexico. Trade is good. Trade agreements? Not so much. The Eurozone has not led to smaller government or more prosperity. I keep bringing up the Eurozone crises and you keep ignoring that too. Oh you'll come back and lie and say "I have not ignored your concerns" but you haven't.

*A common defense pact among the American countries. This already exists as part of the OAS, and was actually used in WW2 by the USA to get the rest of the Americas to declare war on the Axis. If better institutionalized we could save on defense costs.

Are you trolling? Common defense pacts are what led to World War I. And our interference in World War I is what led to World War II. I don't want world wars. The last thing I want is us going to war with England the next time Argentina decides to take over the Falklands. A country should only go to war be cause that country independently decides it's in its best interest to do so. Your plan is guaranteed to lead to more war and more dead U.S. soldiers. Save defense costs? I want defense costs to be so high that war becomes unthinkable. I don't want cheap death.

You can pretend all you want to that you are an "ancap" and for "smaller government" but I don't believe you one bit at this point. You are arguing for everything this movement is against.

*If welfare programs were expanded to 'others' then traditional proponents of these policies would try to reform the system in order to de-federalize welfare programs. Redistribution schemes work partially because Americans are okay, to an extent, with providing welfare to people they recognize as similar to themselves. Greater diversity however would cause them to become resentful of providing welfare to 'others'. An American might tolerate subsidizing a fellow American, but the thought of a Quebecer getting some of that dole? Why that is unthinkable!

What difference does it make if it becomes "unthinkable" if Americans are now outvoted by the "Quebecers" of the world. Many of more prosperous Eurozone countries resent carrying the weight of the less prosperous ones. I referendum after referendum the people in these countries have said the want out. So far they haven't been let out. That alone should tell you how stupid your idea is.

There are limits to integration. Americans underestimate how similar they are to their fellow Americans (in the continental sense). Latin America speaks Spanish, and on occasion Portuguese, but it should not be forgotten that it is inhabited by republican countries founded on classical liberal principles. Liberty has a series of books exploring the classical liberal tradition in Latin America; Liberty in Mexico and Liberal Thought in Argentina. As far as a common history and culture go our American brethren are similar enough that a union could work, but foreign-looking enough that federal welfare programs would be unpopular.

I brought up the language point to show how nonsensical your whole "Well the 13 colonies became a union" argument. And of course you ignored the U.S. civil war. Even though the 13 colonies had a common language, culture and government they fought a bloody civil war because one side was no longer happy with the union. Also if your idea is so grand and wonderful, why don't you push it in South America? Let's see if they can come together. After all they have a common language, culture and former colonial government (with the exception of Brazil of course). So far such ideas have been vehemently resisted largely because the socialists governments there don't want to be part of any union that might lead to union with the United States. And again, the "popularity" of federal welfare programs is irrelevant. If you bring hundreds of millions of new welfare recipients who can vote into your system then who the hell cares how much people in the United States don't like it? But also you are showing extreme naivete about how the European Union works. Each country takes care of it's own welfare roles (supposedly) but it shows up on other countries balance sheets through the manipulation by the central banks. So someone in England can resent welfare spent on someone in Greece but the person in England actually has no say over it even though the actions of the Greek government end up being a drain on the entire European economy.

 

[otherone]

Adding new states to the US is both feasible within our lifetimes and keeping with our tradition.

"our" is not an ancap word.

 

[jmdrake]

"our" is not an ancap word.

+rep! And nobody advocating for "mutual defense pacts" can honestly call himself an ancap. Go to war with Great Britain so that Argentina can retake the Falklands? I don't think so.

 

[TheTexan]

Adding new states to the US is both feasible within our lifetimes and keeping with our tradition.

Yes, we would make the great President A. Lincoln proud if we brought more states into our Glorious Eternal Union.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"Liberty and Disunion, now and for ever, many and separable!" (and to hell with Daniel Webster).

Common defense pacts are what led to World War I. And our interference in World War I is what led to World War II.

And World War Two was a war of "common defense pacts" as well.

One of Britian's chief excuses for entering the war was its defense pact with Poland. When Germany invaded Poland, Britian declared war on Germany.
And Germany and Japan had a mutual defense pact. When the US declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the US.

I don't want world wars. The last thing I want is us going to war with England the next time Argentina decides to take over the Falklands. A country should only go to war be cause that country independently decides it's in its best interest to do so. Your plan is guaranteed to lead to more war and more dead U.S. soldiers. Save defense costs? I want defense costs to be so high that war becomes unthinkable. I don't want cheap death.

THIS ^^^.

If wars are going to happen, it's much better that they be as small, local and limited as possible.

The notion of pan-hemispheric defense pacts is an absolutely awful idea.

There is a reason Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia ...

 

[osan]

I am planning to write on the topic of American integration and figured it'd be good to hear from the other side.

Does anyone here oppose greater integration between the American nations? And if so, why?

Now let us clarify a few things. I am not asking to be told how NAFTA and other 'free' trade agreements have several exclusions. NAFTA is not perfect but given the political environment of its time it was the best agreement that could be made. I am not asking to be preached about how we should outright abolish nation-states and allow individuals to freely trade with one another regardless of imaginary lines on the ground.

I am asking why someone should be against expanding NAFTA to include central America, the Caribbean, or possibly the entire American continent under a Free Trade Area of the Americas-esque agreement.

I am asking why someone should be against allowing nationals of American states to freely live and work in one another country, in an agreement similar to the European Schengen area. Migrants under this scheme would ideally not be allowed to vote or access welfare benefits.

I am asking why someone should be against the political unification of the American continent - and I dare avoiding the 'sovereignty' complaint. The United States of America is already a supranational entity that has swallowed up various independent states. It is regrettable that states have been denied the right to secede at will, but all in all I believe as a people we have benefited from a common market. Why then not invite our neighbors to apply for statehood?

Judging by this, your high school teacher has done his indoctrination work on you effectively. If you are a proponent of "free trade" then you do not understand it; or you're completely gone 'round the bend. I cannot say which.

But to answer your question with another non-answer, it would take too long to give a proper response to your query and I'm tired. Therefore, I leave the thread in the capable hands of my cohorts.

 

[osan]

I'm an ancap

You're as ancap as a ham and cheese sandwich is kosher.

 

[Michelangelo]

You're as ancap as a ham and cheese sandwich is kosher.

Sigh. It is clear that most of you here prefer attacks on people instead of attacks on ideas. Very well, I shall leave if that is the case.

I leave you with these words. It is one thing to desire a stateless society as soon as possible, and another to refuse to take marginal steps toward that goal. It is okay to compromise out of political neccesity, so long as you make it clear your end goal is an ancap society and your compromise gets you closer to that goal. 'Free trade' agreements are not truly about free trade, but they oftentimes do genuinely decrease trade barriers. It is as such acceptable to support NAFTA and other agreements even though they leave much to be desired.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Sigh. It is clear that most of you here prefer attacks on people instead of attacks on ideas. Very well, I shall leave if that is the case.

I leave you with these words. It is one thing to desire a stateless society as soon as possible, and another to refuse to take marginal steps toward that goal. It is okay to compromise out of political neccesity, so long as you make it clear your end goal is an ancap society and your compromise gets you closer to that goal. 'Free trade' agreements are not truly about free trade, but they oftentimes do genuinely decrease trade barriers. It is as such acceptable to support NAFTA and other agreements even though they leave much to be desired.

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

 

[jmdrake]

Sigh. It is clear that most of you here prefer attacks on people instead of attacks on ideas. Very well, I shall leave if that is the case.

I leave you with these words. It is one thing to desire a stateless society as soon as possible, and another to refuse to take marginal steps toward that goal. It is okay to compromise out of political neccesity, so long as you make it clear your end goal is an ancap society and your compromise gets you closer to that goal. 'Free trade' agreements are not truly about free trade, but they oftentimes do genuinely decrease trade barriers. It is as such acceptable to support NAFTA and other agreements even though they leave much to be desired.

What do mutual defense agreements that could possibly force us to go to war with Great Britain have to do with free trade?