Union of North America
Out of context: Reply #8
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- detritus0
I find the reasoning mostly indecypherable - the principal proponents appear to be right-wing politicos, whose interests would otherwise appear to be best served by the status quo - a cheap and compliant labour force with no governmental requirement in the south, coupled with discrete and well-administered economies in the North. Perhaps it's a US-centric attempt to cushion the inevitable future collapse of the dollar by diluting the effect amongst two other substantial nations?
Unlike EU, there is less need of a social or political homogeneity between the extremes of North and South, and less recent historical need for a North American union - ie. early border settlement aside, there has been no recent warring between the three countries. Even so, when there were, they were generally settled amicably, much by financial reparation. That, and that bulk of the reasoning (as I see it, anyway) for the EU was to combine the numerous smaller states along with the big few in Europe to a single bloc and unified voice when dealing with the rest of the world. Again, I don't get what the US or Canada would gain here - they are both well-represented and influential states on the world stage.
For these reasons, I find it hard to view such furthering of the NAFTA without taking a much longer term view, toward the ultimate union of all nations - but this is where speculation inevitably takes on tones of the conspirational. That said, I'm not that sure why the formation of a World Government is viewed so negatively by many (admittedly, mostly the conspiracy classes). If anything, nascent organisations such as the UN, EU or ASEAN appear to have driven more good than not over the past 50 years. I certainly find paranoid notions of subjugation of the working classes and agglomoration of power into the very top tiers hard to swallow.
Though, with the effective ever-increasing loss of sovereignty to net energy exporters such as Russia or the Middle East, perhaps such a banding together does make more long-term sense than I can comprehend.
By extension, I wonder what NATO might develop into over the next 50 years?
- Augh shit, I need to start setting myself word limits. What a load of guff. Sorry.detritus
- there are too many big words in this for people to read on a Monday morning. that said, nice post.Jaline
- Also, I still think the U.S. has been sucking hard (metaphorically and literally) for the past while.Jaline
- A new president may change that, but I'm not sure Canadians are interested in joining forces.Jaline
- It's not the words, it's poorly written, despite how smart det wants to come across.Transit_Broadcast
- you had me at "indecypherable"Point5