Consolidating National soverignty [Archive]

darkeyes

Sep 6, 2007, 8:05 PM

Not gonna go on at length ere bout this issue.. but as socialist an internationalist think the soona we get shot of "soveriegnty" as we undastand it 2 day..the soona we get shotta the reason for most of the conflicts on the planet...an can invest resources wich r wasted on fukkin wars in summat wich mite jus improve peeps lot.... an protect the planet 2 boot.

An me 2 detests the thought of elites rulin the roost as well but as long as we have elites as they exist now they will continue 2 use an use ther power an crass selfishness 2 abuse the people of the planet and the finite resources 2 the detriment of us an our descendants. Have written quite a few lil essays on this in ere in midst of various rows in threads... nun of its perfect thinkin but at least its a clearer idea of howta utilise the planet than we have now. An ther r far cleverer peeps than me who both know betta an can articulate it betta than I eva will.

Rite me ofta bed now... am knackered.. cyas!

the mage

Sep 6, 2007, 8:16 PM

Long before the governments merge the corporations that control your life are already world wide and in control.
Government policy is made in the boardroom. What you see is window dressing.

Ally Kat

Sep 6, 2007, 8:17 PM

Long before the governments merge the corporations that control your life are already world wide and in control.
Government policy is made in the boardroom. What you see is window dressing.

exactly

biwords

Sep 6, 2007, 8:32 PM

exactly

That view's a little too Marxist for me -- it overlooks, for example, the power and influence of the universities and the military. In fact, the universities are the most influential of all, since they form the minds of the folks in the boardrooms.

Ally Kat

Sep 6, 2007, 8:53 PM

biwords

Sep 6, 2007, 9:04 PM

look at who the president and VP are ...oilmen..

Until next year :).

Ally Kat

Sep 6, 2007, 9:16 PM

Until next year :).

can't be soon enough

mindfinding

Sep 6, 2007, 10:17 PM

BTW, I'm not bashing on Canada OR Mexico by being opposed to.
It is the condensing into the hands of the elite all the global power that makes my blood boil.

I'm Canadian and agree. We should keep our borders. And frankly, I like the amount of trouble we deal with already,...I don't need to deal with the weeds in the USA or Mexico. Canada has enough weeds of its own.

bigregory

Sep 6, 2007, 11:06 PM

Hell all our jobs have gone to mexico.
Cant beat 2 bucks an hour.
How do you join that union?

LoveLion

Sep 7, 2007, 2:04 AM

I dont see why everyone is so against this. Its not that bad an idea. Sure a lot would have to change: Currency being a big one. It would mean that affairs in Mexico would effect the over all value of the dollar in Canada and the US (and vise-versa), but as we move more and more into credit now a days that wouldn't mean as much as it used to. And a broader currency is more stable then a less broad one. The Canadian and American Dollar are about equal now anyways so it would change the value to much (maybe more so in Mexico), and since Canada the US, and Mexico are such big trading partners it would simplify alot of things when it comes to trading (ie, less border issues, no more softwood lumber type issues, etc). As for government, I think some people are misinterpreting this. We wouldnt have one North America gov. Each country would maintain its own gov and elections and everything just like Europe does. Since the European Union, there isnt a King of Europe. It does mean that the governments can work much more closely to solve issues that involve all of North America such as global warming, Russia claiming the North, etc. A North American Union would also eliminate the whole boarder issue in Mexico and the US. If Mexicans and American's are free to work and travel between the US and Mexico then it would solve alot of the issues surrounding the "illegal aliens". We should also think about how it would benefit Mexico (the less fortunate NA country). If we were all part of a greater Union, then their economy would benefit from the success of ours and it would help to eliminate poverty. Also they would receive the same rights and wages as the rest of North American's which means that they would get better pay, and American's can stop complaining about Mexicans taking all the jobs because suddenly they wouldnt be getting paid so much less and employers would start hiring based on skill rather then hiring a Mexican because he/she can pay them dirt. National security would benefit as well as we could easily sync our security systems and create continent wide security systems. Some might be afraid of losing some national identity, but the European nations who joined the EU have maintained their national identity. And really is national identity really that big a price to pay for the other benefits? Nationalism is an evil anyways, and this can help break it down some. Also if NA wants to compete with China for economic domination then we need all the strength we can get. Its also stupid to let historic squabbles of the past between our nations (Mexican-American War, War of 1812, Canada's British allegiance) to get in the way of progress and the future.

Now is it really necessary? Probably not. The European Union made more sense because there were so many European nations in such a small proximity all trying to deal with each other politically, economically and geographically. Because there are only 3 countries in NA and they are so big, there is no real desperate need to make this Union and the benefits wouldnt be as strong as those the European Union created. But still, I see nothing evil, wrong or "Fucked up" about this is anyway.

darkeyes

Sep 7, 2007, 5:26 AM

That view's a little too Marxist for me -- it overlooks, for example, the power and influence of the universities and the military. In fact, the universities are the most influential of all, since they form the minds of the folks in the boardrooms.Summat wrong wiv bein Marxist wordsie??? Dunno bout ova ur way babes... an don deny ther is summat in wotya say..but equally the chaos of student life in the main don allow much political influencin 2 register in most brains... in my experience it polarises ratha than conforms.. cos it usually confirms the already half formed attititudes of most students...

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 10:28 AM

Summat wrong wiv bein Marxist wordsie??? ...

Well, with a record of tens of millions of dead in the 20th century, yes, I'd say there's something wrong with being Marxist, in the same sense that there's something wrong with being Nazi. I acknowledge that there are Marxists like yourself who are good and admirable people, Fran...but alas, there were good and admirable Nazis too, life being as complicated as it is. I just don't care to sign on to death-cults of any kind. Maybe I'm just a sissy? :)

bookworm

Sep 7, 2007, 10:35 AM

LOL!

Back in the 70's, there was a push to adopt to the metric system, which failed on a grand scale. Ain't gonna happen, folks.

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 11:07 AM

Metric was adopted in Canada, of course -- part of Trudeau's scheme for detaching Canada from the US and reattaching it to Europe.

MarieDelta

Sep 7, 2007, 11:29 AM

Well here goes Marie sticking herself into someplace she don't belong (again).

It would be nice to have one government over all, provided that government was able to do things fairly for all.

The problems here are that the bigger an organization gets the harder it is to change anything, too much power in too few hands is corrupting (China, USSR) doesn't seem to matter how good those people start out, they are only people in the end.

I guess I'm a pessimist, cause I don't see that there will ever be an end to wars in my lifetime. Wars and hatred seem to be part of the human genetic code, unfortunately.

We are related closely to Chimps who practice their own version of war and genocide. I would rather be closer realted to the bonobo, but curse the luck, we aren't.

If it isn't wars between nations or civil wars then it's gang wars. Because wherever you have a gap in power something(or someone) rushes in to fill it. That seems to be human nature too.

The Soviets had their problems, as have the Chinese. Creating a just and equitable society isn't an easy thing or we would have done it before now.

anyway that's just my :2cents:

As far as the metric system goes, I find that it is much easier/faster to use. I wish we'd just switch over to it right now.

Once you have everything in one system, it won't be so bad, conversion is what kills you.

All the best,

Marie

ps Hope that I am making sense here. - m

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 12:05 PM

Since the European Union, there isnt a King of Europe. It does mean that the governments can work much more closely to solve issues that involve all of North America...A North American Union would also eliminate the whole boarder issue in Mexico and the US...We should also think about how it would benefit Mexico (the less fortunate NA country). If we were all part of a greater Union, then their economy would benefit from the success of ours and it would help to eliminate poverty. Also they would receive the same rights and wages as the rest of North American's which means that they would get better pay, and American's can stop complaining about Mexicans taking all the jobs because suddenly they wouldnt be getting paid so much less and employers would start hiring based on skill rather then hiring a Mexican because he/she can pay them dirt. Some might be afraid of losing some national identity, but the European nations who joined the EU have maintained their national identity. And really is national identity really that big a price to pay for the other benefits? Nationalism is an evil anyways, and this can help break it down some. Also if NA wants to compete with China for economic domination then we need all the strength we can get. Its also stupid to let historic squabbles of the past between our nations (Mexican-American War, War of 1812, Canada's British allegiance) to get in the way of progress and the future...Now is it really necessary? Probably not. The European Union made more sense because there were so many European nations in such a small proximity all trying to deal with each other politically, economically and geographically. Because there are only 3 countries in NA and they are so big, there is no real desperate need to make this Union and the benefits wouldnt be as strong as those the European Union created. But still, I see nothing evil, wrong or "Fucked up" about this is anyway.

As usual, you're trying to see the big picture as fairly as possible. A few observations, though:

1. To say that 'nationalism' is evil is debatable in itself -- Hitler's nationalism was bad, but without counter-nationalisms (particularly Russian), resistance to him would have been much weaker, so whether nationalism is bad seems to depend on context. But in any case 'nationalism' isn't to be equated with 'national identity'. Are the things that make the French different from the Italians evil? Isn't national identity simply diversity, which (as we are continually told) is a Good Thing? If Italian styles and French berets were replaced with some common Maoist uniform, and if their languages were replaced by Esperanto, would that be an improvement?

2. Doesn't your argument tend to favor world government, and (diversity, again, being a good thing) isn't that something to worry about? What if the world government falls into the hands of a Stalin? I would have thought that decentralization limits the amount of evil any one government can do. It also limits the amount of good any one government can do, but I am more fearful of the evil that governments (at their worst) do than I am hopeful regarding the good they do.

3. What reason do you have for believing that a continental union would raise Mexican wages to North American levels rather than lowering North American wages to Mexican levels? (doubtless under the rationale of making us more 'competitive' with, say, China).

4. No, there's no King of Europe, but many Europeans believe that the Brussels bureaucracy is gradually assuming such a role de facto.

5. As you say, given that there are only three nations under discussion, there's no need for a European-style union. And, as Edmund Burke said, if it is not necessary to do a thing, then it is necessary not to do it. :)

Herbwoman39

Sep 7, 2007, 12:21 PM

darkeyes

Sep 7, 2007, 1:31 PM

Herbwoman, the trees, the tribe, the clan, the city state all had their time. The day has already come when the nation state as we know it has had its time. The question is what its 2 be replaced with, something more akin to the EU or a more tightly knit international state where the nation states are a part of its federal or confederal structure..or more.

People died for many things. People died for the freedom of my country against the overwhelming power of England on the islands upon which I live, and yet that day passed, and now we are together nations as part of a multi-nation state: a state itself a part of a greater multi nation union.. the European Union.. something not so long back people died to stop. People died fighting against Rome and other ancient empires and yet these empires left us witha legacy which changed our ancestors way of life forever. It is not a slap in the face for those who died fighting against the British but a recognition of changed times. Your ancestors fought against the British as much for that reason as any.

The argument you give about Mexico is a selfish if understandable one, and yet it is for this reason that the nation state as we know it has served its time. The EU has since the original 6 states formed it, taken in more poor states and has assisted in bringing them up to a greaer level of prosperity, and made the EU for all its problems, a better place in which to live. Ireland for isntance is only as prosperous as it is because the EU financed and support its economic revolution. Similarly Spain , Portugal and Greece and other nations have changed for the better because of this policy. And made Europe a better place in which to live. Recent acceptance of the old Warsaw Pact states of Eastern and Central Europe shows that the EU, imperfect as it is looks to the bigger picture...the raising up of poor and broken states as true partners of a more united Europe.

The US and Canada can do the same for Mexico if they have the will. A prosperous Mexico will no longer have people who wish to leave in the same numbers and settle, legally or illegally in North America. It will take time, and there will be many pitfalls. But it is a far greater ideal, than nation states who in their selfish small minded way, close their doors to their poorer neighbours, and wish only for the status quo.

Its time for the peoples of all nations to accept changed times. What we have to work out is how best to move forward with the demise of the nation state as we know it.

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 1:55 PM

What we have to work out is how best to move forward with the demise of the nation state as we know it.

With respect, many on the left have the habit of talking as if something they WANT to happen has already happened -- hence all the 20th-century talk about 'late capitalism' even as capitalism was in the ascendant. Similarly, there are many nations and nationalities that haven't received the memo about the 'demise of the nation-state'. A significant number of Mexicans, for example, don't talk about merging with the US, but about la reconquista -- taking back the U.S. Southwest for purely nationalistic reasons. And what will the Palestinians do when they hear that their desire for a nation-state is 'so 1947'?

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 2:01 PM

I have two really big problems with this. The first is that people *died* so that we could have a separate government and a separate national identity. To give that up would be a slap in the face to everything those people fought and died for. Not to mention our founding fathers put themselves in mortal danger. If captured by the Brits, they would have been drawn and quartered, beheaded and burned.

My second really big issue is that Mexico is very nearly a third world country. The US and Canada would be supporting them. We already have enough problems with illegal immigrants and our own poor without having to deal with an entire *country*.

So, long story short, I'm very much against this.

Yes, that was a point I had meant to raise in my response to LoveLion, but forgot. A nation is not a charitable enterprise. The US (or Canada) does not exist for the purpose of improving Mexico. Fran calls this 'selfishness'. But I don't see Mexico (or China) preoccupying itself with making the US better, either. The country that behaves like a charitable enterprise ("Americans Without Borders"?) will be eaten up by countries that look out for themselves. China's growing involvement in Africa may or may not benefit Africa, but it is certainly being undertaken for the purpose of benefiting China.

darkeyes

Sep 7, 2007, 2:30 PM

With respect, many on the left have the habit of talking as if something they WANT to happen has already happened -- hence all the 20th-century talk about 'late capitalism' even as capitalism was in the ascendant. Similarly, there are many nations and nationalities that haven't received the memo about the 'demise of the nation-state'. A significant number of Mexicans, for example, don't talk about merging with the US, but about la reconquista -- taking back the U.S. Southwest for purely nationalistic reasons. And what will the Palestinians do when they hear that their desire for a nation-state is 'so 1947'?What I am saying wordsie is that times have changed and the world must find better solutions than it has hitherto. The nation state as we know it is waht i am talking about. The EU has found one way forward, far from ideal, but better than the centuries of strife which went before.

Of course Palestinians should have their own state, nation whatever you wish to call it but there has to be a recognition that the world has changed. Nothing is written on tablets of stone. Regarding Mexico and the southern US there are many disputes between nations and peoples about who owns what piece of land. And many die as a consequence. By changing the way we run our world is a way of avoiding ultimately such catastrophe... it guarantees nothing but it is a hopeful way forward.

What Iam saying is that things must change, and are changing, and the day of the demise of the nation state AS WE KNOW IT, is upon us.. Europe has already done so, and other parts of the world will find their own way. Including yours.

I end by saying this.. the nation state does note exist for the purpose of improving other nations but the inahbitants of that nation...not the nation state AS WE KNOW IT.. but in at least one part of the world 2 dozen nations, for all their faults and for all their difficulties, have come up with a way to prove that as a historicaly anomaly in their own case. They have proved that for whatever reason.. nations can work together for the improvement of all...

Skater Boy

Sep 7, 2007, 2:45 PM

Yes, that was a point I had meant to raise in my response to LoveLion, but forgot. A nation is not a charitable enterprise. The US (or Canada) does not exist for the purpose of improving Mexico. Fran calls this 'selfishness'. But I don't see Mexico (or China) preoccupying itself with making the US better, either. The country that behaves like a charitable enterprise ("Americans Without Borders"?) will be eaten up by countries that look out for themselves. China's growing involvement in Africa may or may not benefit Africa, but it is certainly being undertaken for the purpose of benefiting China.

lol, should the strong help the weak? Or should they worry more about their own problems? the answer, as always, depends on your perspective. I suspect that Biwords sees global politics as a bunch of states that are ultimately competing AGAINST eachother for success and dominance. Whereas Fran would like to see complete CO-OPERATION to achieve mutual stability and equality.

I believe that "the weak" should be helped. But certainly not to the detriment of the strong. If, by helping the weak, you lay yourself open to also becoming weaker, you have to consider whether its sensible to do so. Because the very weak often find it difficult to help others OR themselves.

I think it was Darwin who stated natures law of "survival of the fittest". I'm not sure if imposing a global regime that opposes this law is the best thing to do. But if it could be achieved successfully, it would probably make for a very just and civilized society.

bookworm

Sep 7, 2007, 2:58 PM

Well said, biwords!

It all looks good on paper, doesn't it? One big happy family.

Reality Check!

biwords

Sep 7, 2007, 3:00 PM

If, by helping the weak, you lay yourself open to also becoming weaker, you have to consider whether its sensible to do so. Because the very weak often find it difficult to help others OR themselves.

That's what I meant -- you've said it better.
Incidentally, Canada was a kind of proto-EU, in the sense that the provinces joined together in order to more effectively counter the threat of a US invasion, just as the EU states joined together (in part) as a counterweight to US power.

darkeyes

Sep 7, 2007, 6:51 PM

Skater.. I have never suggested that the powerful should make themselves weak. Weaker possibly in relation to their previous position but only in relative terms. I do not suggest that anyone should be made poorer in real terms, only that by cooperating, richer nations can give the poorer a leg up to their level of wealth and prosperity. This has many problems.. the rise of Asia has already as we know affected the industrial base of the west substantially, so that alone is a serious problem which must be addressed.. not in the manner suggested by protectionist reactionaries, but by changing the way of the economic base of those countries who have lost industry to those developing economies.. which means real investment in new industries, new ways of working and the creation of wealth in different ways than in the past.

Initially Wordsie, the EU was merely a trade pact of 6 countries. As it grew and changed nature economically socially and politically, and became more wealthy it was inevitable that it would become in some ways a counterweight to the US as well as the old Warsaw Pact trading Bloc. Its main purpose is the economic prosperity of Europe, but it also sees the need, as does much of the US political establishment (if not the Republican) for international cooperation on a whole range of issues of concern to humanity.

To Bookworm I say this... the reality check isnt mine... the reality check is that of humanity.. sure I am an idealist but I have a good dose of reality, and know none of it will be easy, and know also that things do change in the strangest most unexpected ways. Things have to change, for if they dont the world is headed for real catastrophe in one way or another. I have a vision which is mine and is shared by many other people. Others have a different view.. whoevers view of the future is realised only one thing is certain.. political, social and economic change in one form or other is inevitable, for if humanity and nations do not change, in two or three generations there will be nothing, or at least not much left to change.

I am by nature an optimist. I believe we can change our world for the better. How its done time will tell. But its late in the day and if we dont get off our arses now and get serious our time is up.... everything I believe is about cooperation. I believe it with every fibre of my being. Because something is difficult doesnt mean it is not desirable or should not be attempted.. we fail those who come after us if we do not make the effort.. which is why I am somewhat irked by Bookworms scoff about reality check... thats the do nothing, sod u attitude so typical of so many people in the west.. and I for one wont wear it!!! I like, I love and I adore this world too much.

AdamKadmon43

Sep 7, 2007, 7:30 PM

Thanks for starting this Az. This is a very interesting discussion. It has gotten from the idea of whether or not we should eliminate North American borders (which I oppose) to the idea of eliminating nationality and world borders (which I REALLY oppose).

The notion that seems to have popped up in here of a World Order with the elimination of Nation-States and the inherent socioeconomic difficulties presented by them is a notion much championed by a great deal of very well-intentioned and very good-hearted individuals who care greatly about humanity, and are searching for ways to improve the human plight. But it very well may also be championed by some with far less than pure motives (multi-national corporations as well as other vested interests come to mind). And, as has been well pointed out in previous posts, the utility of all this is dependent upon who is ultimately in charge. Unfortunately, most things in life are not about what is good or bad.... what is right or wrong.... what is fair or unfair. It is much more about who is in control.... who has it their way..... who calls the shots.

It seems to me as though that historically (at least from a global perspective) three things have primarily caused most of humanity’s conflicts: nationalism, territorialism, and religion. Ultimately the elimination of borders and, supposedly the resulting nationalistic homogenization of all people would ideally eliminate some of those conflicts, but you ain’t never gonna get rid of religious differences. The only way to accomplish that would be to get rid of religion all together, or unite them all under one religion. The former was tried without success by the Communist governments in both Russia and China. And as for the latter ….. well, try to imagine how much success one would have with that, given religion being what it is. So the idealism of this is fraught with problems. :)I would dearly love to see all people united together as one…. Just so long as they all believed as I do.:)

Another thing that causes me concerns is what globalization might do to human creativeness. A great deal of our remarkable achievements through out history are the result of competition between nations just as much good is accomplished in competition between individuals. Would we still need the Olympics?

If the EU has indeed been good for Europe, then I am very much ok with it (although there seems to be a great deal of disagreement by my some of my European friends about that). But I really would not want to extend the success of that to apply to cultures that are much more historically and culturally diverse.

Speaking of diversity, I think that I shall digress for a bit. Much has been made in this thread of the “goodness” and “feel good” notions about diversity……. It is NOT…… Diversity is not something to be celebrated. It is a necessary evil that we all must deal with if we hope to get along together. For example, most of my completely heterosexual friends will not ever be willing to “celebrate” my bisexuality, just as I can not “celebrate” their rather, what I consider to be, limited perspective. But we still get along without “celebrating” each other.

I probably have gotten way far off the original subject, but thanks for letting me go on, and on anyhow.

Adam

It would be quite nice if someday the Ideal and the Real became somehow or other remotely related.

gb11vt18

Sep 7, 2007, 8:12 PM

Not a huge fan of the idea of a combined National Soverignty with all of these nations, I would rather just see the three nations coexist with each other. I mean the EU has made some positive steps but not everything has been agreed by everyone in the multination union. I just think that we would be all better for have the three indiviual countries.

ALMOE

Sep 7, 2007, 11:00 PM

Does 1984 ring any bells??

biwords

Sep 8, 2007, 1:28 AM

Whether diversity is good or not is contextual; I'm all for cultural diversity (for example, having distinct literatures in English, French and Italian). Unfortunately, diversity has become something of a code-word for less happy developments, such as racial quotas or near-quotas in hiring.

darkeyes

Sep 8, 2007, 5:11 AM

Does 1984 ring any bells??

Well dus 2 me...me went 2 Primary School...

the mage

Sep 8, 2007, 9:28 AM

The only reason for a push to remove borders is to continue the process of homogenization of people and their culture.

It quite simply makes it easier for people (like the guys in china and their poison toys) to move the same goods all over the planet cheaply and easily because they will CREATE the demand with media ownership in a common cultural base..

SEE???? :cool:

biwords

Sep 8, 2007, 9:35 AM

The only reason for a push to remove borders is to continue the process of homogenization of people and their culture.
:cool:

Well put. And that's a horrifying prospect, to anyone who's ever appreciated any particular national or regional culture.

darkeyes

Sep 8, 2007, 10:48 AM

Hasnt homogenisation of cultures being going on for centuries?? and hasnt it speeded up in the last 50 years??? Every major city has a McDonalds after all..dress has become increasingly standardised the world over, English is the international language, western rock music is universal, american film dominates everywhere and more. Some is good some less so... its not removal of borders which has done that... its improved communication an bloody shit hot advertising and hard sell by big biz and the west, in particular the US, as well as not a lil bribery an corruption.

I havent actually said remove borders, what I said is that the status of the nation state as we know it must change. Borders will remain as cultural an administrative necessities whichever kind of political future the world has. Culture should never be static. It must evolve if it is to survive. I welcome that, but that does not mean we forget our culture as it was. On the contrary it is where we come from and is our history and our heritage. It is who we are, just as culture changes and we adapt..it is who we have become.

There is a germ of truth in what Mage says about cheap manufacturing and media ownership guiding culture. The latter is why western culture predominates. Why Mage is so fightened is probably because he sees his culture consumed by that of an alien one and made to change for the worse. It is something he will not understand or be comfortable with. And that is understandable. Yet what else has been happening the world over since the inception of instant media?? and earlier? Western culture has consumed and changed that of many different parts of the world for good or ill. And yet as we have more contact with an ever increasing planetary population, an ever more domineering media and ever more ruthless globalisation I fear this may be ever more inevitable. Would the world be worse of if the Chinese owned the media and directed and influenced world culture any more than it currrently is with it predominantly in the hands of the US? It depends on where you live to answer that one....

Similarly there is resentment that the far east economies and to some extent eastern european have stolen the westren manufacturing base and can make and sell things more cheaply than if they had remained in the US UK or wherever. But who gave them that capacity? Multinationals who saw cheaper labour forces and ways of making ever more money. This is not to say that those nations should not have been provided with the technical know how that they are currently using to swamp us with cheap goods. In many ways it is a good thing because it allows them to raise themselves up to being closer to the level of the west. In others it is dangerous because of the mad rush to inudtrialise and the environemntal costs, as well as the friction it causes with the west.

Nothing is a simple as it seems. Without having an idea of the whole picture, and trying to understand why things are as they are, or are becoming, we often make the wrong decisions and blame the wrong people. Similarly by blanking the idea of removing the nation state as the top tier of government, and insisting on narrow nationalist interest, we stifle progress to a better world. The debate should not be about whether, but how.

My concern on this whole issue, is that because of fear of other cultures, because we refuse to understand other peoples, and that other nations have intersts which are important to them, and at least as important as ours are to our own nation, and continue to treat those others with contempt, globalisation and multinational power will go ahead and force it upon us with the catastrophic consequences that will entail. Government should be of the people by the people for the people.. whatever form it takes. Unless we think seriously and get involved, it will be of the people by International Capitalism for International Capitalists.

I dont have all the answers. I do have some I think. All I ask is that people think about the world, how it is how it could be and not to condemn out of hand without understanding and learning about what any given change could mean. We too often jump an say no at change. I am a modern thinking woman who looks to the future and grapples with the problems as I see them. I read a great deal and learn and try to understand why things are, what they could become. I believe in change, not for changes sake, but change if its for the better, and I welcome it. I know its subjective, but isnt everything? I never say no to anything without thinking it through as best my tiny lil brain will let me.

the mage

Sep 8, 2007, 5:23 PM

dOOd.. I live Toronto/Mississauga if you fear cultural change you do not live here.

The reality of the push for globalisation of government and corporation is to increase the power and profit levels at the top of the human food chain.
The co-operative utopia you type of is a Trekkies best case scenario.

The reality of our precarious situation on this rock has been known for decades.
I sat in on discussions outlining the very stuff covered in "Inconvenient Truth" but it was 30 years ago.
The political push is as usual too late to matter to the common man.
The big picture that is not being told to people is that there are just too many of us. All the government and corporate co-operation we can muster will not alter the future path we have laid.
Your culture and your civilization have based its well being on the flow of goods, not the flow of nature.
There are too many humans by 5.5 Billion or so. We have not only broken, but utterly destroyed the food chain. We survive in great numbers by growing our food in our own waste and bathing it in chemicals.
The reality of 9 Billion people in another 50 years is glibly offered up in the media as some sort of goal to be achieved......... madness.....

AdamKadmon43

Sep 8, 2007, 6:23 PM

The status of the Nation-State must not change.... It is inherently an evil, often very cruel, war-mongering unfair situation, but in the final analysis, it is, I believe, a better alternative to the Orwellian, mind-numbing, spirit-crushing approach that some would suggest as a replacement.

Believe me... I truly understand how much sensitive, kind, caring, loving people would very much want to find a way to improve the human condition. But the sorts of ideas that are often suggested to solve this dilemma simply will not work unless we perform a frontal lobotomy on everyone and turn them into a group of mindless "worker bees" or something.

I sometimes suspect that about as much harm comes from good intentions as ever comes from bad ones.

Adam

darkeyes

Sep 9, 2007, 5:47 AM

Never said I feared cultural change Magie babes.. quite the opposite...

Adam hun, Orwell was a warning of what could be if we dont watch our arses.. to a great extent what has come to pass is proof that we havent been watching our arses close enough. But being forewarned and knowing that so much has come to pass give sus ammunition and strentgh to begin to change things. Nothing stays static. Its up to people.. active bright courageous people to begin to start the fight back and begin to change things for the better.

Adam, I get my core beliefs from my dad. He was an old time socialist and 60's hippie who was sure the time for his dreams had come. The 70's and 80's destroyed his dreams and gave him a care worn attitude of defeat and acceptance not that his dreams were dead, but certainly that he was never going to see them. It did dent, though thankfully not destroy, his belief in the esssential goodness of humanity, and he is a much more cynical individual than was once the case.

The old sod raised me to believe as he did so much of the same things.. not exactly, for we have some brill barneys about what socialism really means, and where the world is headed. Times have changed and my socialism is I hope a bit more modern thinking than the kind he envisaged. His feeling if betrayal is strong..the betrayal committed by his generation.. the generation which he believed was the worlds great hope.. the generation of the mid 1960's. Now of course running and ruining the world as he sees it.

I have no such baggage. Because of his experience and the way he raised me I have immense patience.. and an understanding that what I dream may not be realised in my lifetime, but that I have an obligation to humanity to do my bit, in my small way to ensure that in time this world is a better place in which to live. But if argue about the world and many things.. the one thing above all I will be grateful for from my dad.. is the belief that within our kind is an essential goodness which ultimately will overcome the greed and selfishnes of the powerful.. if he is cynical about many things in his dotage.. he is not cynical about that.. and that he has passed on to me.

Laugh if you want. It all sounds daft to many. And with the state of the and the shite we see around us, I cant and and dont blame them. It does make for ace rows which meat an drink to the Fran gob! But I believe it and know it deep down to be true. For I also see around me immense love and compassion, the striving of decent and compassionate human beings to help those less able to cope with the problems of the world. I see that essential goodness displayed subconciously and conciously by many people day in day out. That is why I am an optimist... thats why I believe in my kind .. and thats why in time.. I believe rightly or wrongly.. the things I believe in will come to pass in one form or other...

coyotedude

Sep 9, 2007, 6:13 AM

That view's a little too Marxist for me -- it overlooks, for example, the power and influence of the universities and the military. In fact, the universities are the most influential of all, since they form the minds of the folks in the boardrooms.

Have to disagree in part, my friend. Universities are the least influential of the forces you mentioned. If they had more influence on the corporate types, the boardrooms would be spitting out different policies. Unfortunately, those little minds are being quickly corrupted after university by corporate cultures and their (so-called) real world experiences.

(I've often wondered whether you yourself were ensconced in academia!)

Peace

darkeyes

Sep 9, 2007, 6:20 AM

Have to disagree in part, my friend. Universities are the least influential of the forces you mentioned. If they had more influence on the corporate types, the boardrooms would be spitting out different policies. Unfortunately, those little minds are being quickly corrupted by corporate cultures and their (so-called) real world experiences.

(I've often wondered whether you yourself were ensconced in academia!)

Peace
Dead rite dude!!! :bigrin:

coyotedude

Sep 9, 2007, 6:39 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_american_union

Does anyone else think this is completely fucked?

I don't necessarily think it's completely fucked; I do think it is unlikely, at least in the next few years.

One of the problems is the disparity between the size of the three economies. In the EU, no one nation dominates the others. In practice, however, that would not be true of a North American union; look at the sheer size of the US economy versus the size of the Canadian and Mexican economies. I don't see any chance that Canadians or Mexicans would set aside any part of their sovereignty unless there were a realistic chance of all three nations being equal partners in the union - an impossibility for the foreseeable future.

There's also the "maturity" level of the economies, if you will. Originally in the EU (or rather its predecessors) the economies were at roughly the same level of development; the inclusion of nations with less developed economies came later, if I remember correctly. (You folks on that side of the pond please correct me if I am mistaken!) However, for a North American union, the Mexican economy is simply not as robust as the US or Canadian economies. There would be no time for a union to establish itself as a healthy entity before having to delve into the thorny issues of the Mexican economy.

Finally, I question whether the true intent of such a union is to create an economic partnership among equals. My suspicion is that this proposal is another way for the US to establish and enforce its economic hegemony upon its neighbors, particularly Mexico. As long as the US views Mexico as "cheap labor" and "cheap oil" instead of "equal economic partner", I believe a North American union is sure to fail.

Mind you, I do believe that strengthening the Mexican economy is likely the only way to improve the quality of life of the Mexican people - and to turn the tide against illegal immigration across the US southern border. Economic cooperation between the US, Canada, and Mexico might well benefit all countries, if done correctly. However, US hegemony over the Mexican economy doesn't necessarily benefit anyone except the fat cats in the corporate boardrooms. And that would be my concern about talk of economic union in North America.

(I say that knowing full well that (a) the US economy depends on Mexican migration and (b) immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are just folks who are trying to get by like the rest of us. My concerns about illegal immigration have nothing to do with the common rant about "those damn Mexicans taking our jobs" and lots to do with the conditions faced by illegal immigrants when they arrive here, given their understandably murky status under US law.)

Peace

darkeyes

Sep 9, 2007, 7:14 AM

Interesting Dude.. in some ways the experience of the UK is a lesson in just such a scenario. 4 countries, 3 with small populations with a total of about 10million people, are in partnership with a larger country of about 50 million... thats a huge disparty which has since the the parlamentary unions of 1707 and 1801 and even before with the conquest of Wales by England and the English Scots and then British interference in Ireland has caused massive problems and resentment throughout these islands. Of course there are major differences too, but the UK experience is relevant. It is really only since the late 1990's that the disaparity of wealth and power between the largest and richest country, England has begun to be addressed with the quasi federalisation of the uk with the advent of the Scottish Parliament and assemblies of Northern Ireland and Wales.

The fact that the MPs of Scotland in particular who are members of the UK parliament have a say in English legislation, when English MPs have no say in that of Scotland where the Scottish Parliament holds power in majot devolved areas is a bone of contention in England, and is causing resentment south of the border. Its an issue which will have to be addressedd at some time but as yet no one has come up with an answer.

Where there is such a huge disparity of wealth and population and power, whether it be within a federal or quasi federal state, or a large centralised political union such as the UK was up till late in the last century, or a looser union based on geo-political social and economic interest will always cause friction and problems until someone comes up with some way of ensuring that each country gets a fair shake.