Bringing up the conversation.

Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Aug 31, 2014 9:31 pm

I first came across this idea by reading Dianne Francis's book "Merger of the century" and from there started on a journey of educating myself in regards to the subject of North American integration. I've collected Robert Pastor's "The North American Idea", and "Toward a North American community" at in march and over the last months or so i've also stockpiled several books i've yet to get through: "Brave new Canada", "Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies", and "Drifting Together: the political economy of Canada-US Integration".

The subject is dense, to say the least. Recently, I had the third or forth conversation on the possibility of the merging of nations with a roommate. His initial response was that he feared something like that would lead to a "one world government" and went on to elaborate on the potential dangers of an open boarder (these were mostly terroristic in nature). I am sold on this idea, i believe it would strengthen both our respective nations for numerous reasons but i have heard echoes of my roommates argument in the voices of various blogs, political sites, while researching this topic online as well.

I suppose my question is, what has been your experience in sharing this idea with others? What are the main arguments of opposition? Every movement starts smalls, but what is our plan for growth?
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 02, 2014 8:06 pm

Welcome to the community, TexanforUNA.

Good to meet you. I thought by your name that your first came across this idea from http://www.unitednorthamerica.org, the website run by Jonathan Wheelwright from which the Annexation.ca forums originally operated. It's great that you are so involved in researching the topic and getting up to speed with the 'latest and greatest' publications and works on the notion!

Personally I've been exposed to many facets of thought and considerations concerning this idea for uniting both our countries over the years, and have had the chance to link up or at least exchange with people from a variety of backgrounds and regions of our nations, so as to enrich my perspectives concerning the feasibility of this underestimated proposition.

Here are my answers to your questions,

I suppose my question is, what has been your experience in sharing this idea with others?

It's been a mixed bag. Some people react viscerally and are quite discontented by the mere consideration of this prospect; it is akin to a taboo subject for them on the level of abortion or Islam. However in most cases there has been genuine interest and curiosity, but what quickly emerges is the reality that most people never really stopped to consider this seriously. It is an oddity that people might be willing to entertain further if a fleshed out proposition that addresses all of the legitimate concerns was fully formulated and communicated.

Among professionals, there has been surprising levels of sympathy, mostly from Ontario and California. My experience is that for this idea to gain any traction as a winning horse, it would require a set of constitutional reforms to really restore many of the foundational notions of subsidiarity in government that characterized both of our confederations. My experience has also been that a sovereign annexation of Canada to the United States would provide the framework and the precedent for other 1st world nations to join later. Eventually, in the long run: yes, it could prove to be the embryo of a consent based lawfully enacted government that unites mankind.

There is a keen interest or at least a genuine curiosity and openness to the idea among the best elements of the North American social organism, ranging from diverse fields such as authors, military officers, career politicians, policemen, professional athletes, actors, news casters, artists, musicians, industrialists, venture capitalists, etc. What is missing is a comprehensive plan to make the sale: a business plan that is truly engaging and convincing. I believe this is the main component of the answer to your third and last question. Flesh out precisely and convincingly a how, a why, a what and you can get the buy in from American and Canadian stake holders to make this thing take off and change the world forever, for the better.

The level of interest among Washington power brokers is significant, on both sides of the partisan divide.

What are the main arguments of opposition?

As I understand them, based on the flack I've been getting from various quarters (ranging from ecosocialist British-Columbians to Conservative Israeli pundits), with a vast array of normal everyday common people from both our nations inbetween:

  • The American republican system is corrupt and broken, dominated by special interests and run by Ivory tower elites who encourage dumb things like racism as a divide and rule means of keeping the general populace off their case.
  • America is no longer really a 1st world country, by many standards (delta between rich and power, % of people living below poverty line, downgraded by ratings firms).
  • The American economy is a shadow of its former self: % of population drowning in debt from school and medical systems is scary, shackled by a crumbling civil infrastructure, high unemployment and burdensome military apparatus
  • One of the main lines of thinking for opponents involves a narrative according to which Canada would commit suicide by joining, condemning its population to a curse that is afflicting Americans since the days of the civil war.

Every movement starts smalls, but what is our plan for growth?

I think communicating a "key in hand" solution to the way of getting this done, how it would work in terms of ensuring that the traditions, institutions and mechanisms of representative government of both our countries are actuated in a lawful and genuine fashion, and updates proposed that can not only achieve majority support on both sides but also directly address the systemic failings of our societies which are suffering from eroded industrial era institutions, by upgrading the whole thing to something more attuned to the information age. This should be achieved through works of non-fiction correctly fleshing out this vision for all to see... followed by a work of fiction to actually make this palpable to the wide audience of every day North Americans.

@Bayowolf PS: It took me 10 years but I finally realized how to use bullet points on this thing lol
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bayowolf » Sep 03, 2014 5:34 am

@Bayowolf PS: It took me 10 years but I finally realized how to use bullet points on this thing lol


Cool! The list-making facility on this software isn't very intuitive--I really don't remember how I figured it out; I vaguely remember a read-me or help file that was on the 1.0 version (but maybe I dreamt that).
Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God. --Thomas Merton
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 08, 2014 7:30 pm

Thank you for the reply! It's so great to be able to talk with like minded individuals and yes, i got my screen name from the Unitednorthamerica.org website. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what you said lol and hearing the opinions of other North Americans, i think I'm starting to understand, at least in part, just how huge and momentous of a task this would/will be!

Politics is always dominated by special interests but i don't think very many people here would disagree that reforms are needed (just with what precisely they should be/ how they should be implemented). As for where America stands in regards to the (Statistical) numbers, we're certainly having a bad decade and in some regards we've been having a bad three or so decades but many of those problems i'm convinced are also deeply connected with the transition into the "information age". Even if all of the factories that began being outsourced in the 70's were brought back to our shores, they would still require far fewer people as workers than what fueled our heyday, due simply to all the advances in technology ect this is a problem all developing nations will have to figure out, not just America.

Our Post WWII way of doing things is dead, no doubt. We are heavily burdened by global responsibilities and while i hear plenty of people lining up to complain about America, i don't see an equivalent amount of say NATO countries boosting their defense budgets to more effectively provide for their own defense against an aggressive Putin, China, ect. Is Canada prepared to defend all of it's Arctic claims? Russia is certainly looking a lot more assertive these days and that has bad implications for both our countries. As this situation continues, i think it might be just what we need to finally get serious about a serious/potent common security perimeter. Which will be a win/win i believe. But of course, that all depends on integration.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 09, 2014 8:39 am

I find no fault with your logic, and it is certainly possible to counter these observations with valid points, such as how overall the USA retains a higher human development index than Canada. And that although many regions of the United States may seem worst off compared to Canada, some others are very similar and some are also better off. There's an opportunity here to strengthen the West at a moment where strength is especially needed: a moral beacon to contrast with the abject darkness to the Islamic madness and nothing could embody this better than Canadians and Americans coming to terms over a way to peacefully and gracefully join forces.

We're already integrated militarily and economically.. the only missing dimension is the political one. You are correct that the rest of the West (Canada included) is unwilling and for the most part unable to bear a bigger percentage of GDP burden for military spending. I think one explanation for this that can help Americans understand why things are so is by taking into account that the ROTW (rest of the West) agreed to let the U.S. dollar be the world's reserve currency in exchange for your military securing and stabilizing the sources and global distribution of oil, the life blood of any industrial economy. As a result of this your country has been able to spend itself into massive debt without suffering the usual inflationnary pressures that normal currencies do.

It is indeed through this arrangement, which finds its historical parrallel with the Athenian Empire and the Delian League, that we can provide context to the overall state of things. Now that this order is being challenged it is natural that Americans would like to see allied nations do more to share the military responsabilities of preserving the stability of civilization.. I agree with what you said that much of these frictions are structural in nature and result from the transition from an industrial age society to an information age society. Canada's military spending is not anchored on a hard target for example, we simply assign objectives and spend accordingly to achieve them, rather than give out a born free enveloppe.

What is certain is that a uniting would totally strengthen our hand against those that wish to rain hate and death upon us lol Here are some of the amendments that I think would help bolster support while fixing some of the structural problems plaguing our political systems:

  • Entering/Exiting Amendment : Existing state can exit if obtains support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. Potential state can join if achieves support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. This ensure that hostile nations can't join and that the union remains consent based.
  • Subsidiarity Amendment: Member states would have the ability to select their own official language(s) and religion(s), As it was the case in the past, and in the British sense (not exclusive of other religions). Obviously member states could continue to elect to have no official language or official religion. Humanism would be an available religion. This could basically pave the way for accomodating all of the West, from Quebec to Norway to Israel.
  • Shared Responsability Amendment : Based on the Canadian notion of shared competencies between the federal and provincial governments in certain areas where interests overlap, namely immigration: soft control over selection at the state level with security clearance of applicants controlled federally.
  • Representative Government Amendment : Clarify that constitutional Monarchy is an acceptable form of representative government at the state level hence allowing countries like Canada, Japan, Norway, Britain etc. to eventually join without disrupting their traditional institutions. Lieutenant Governors would assume the role and function of classic republican system state Governors, hence be elected in like manner but as "branch office managers" for the head of state(s). States would obviously have to include a state level constitutional amendment ensuring the presence of a mechanism allowing them to adopt a republican form of government if the constituents to wish it, and vice-versa.
There are more possibilities that would be able to address things like financial and economic concerns, but those are the crucial ones which I feel should be given consideration in the interest of resolving the political impasses that prevent meaningful progress towards a combination of our nations.
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 09, 2014 2:08 pm

Hmmm, that first amendment is likely what would make citizens in the states the most uncomfortable. I understand the rationale, but apart from the hyperbolic fools who sometimes bring up "succession ballots" in order to make a headline here, the political issue of a right to succeed was decided with Civil War. 3 Supreme court Justices have furthermore had cause to comment on succession Joseph Story, Chase, and Scalia. I don't have time to look up their exact quotes, but all essentially declare unilateral succession (As performed by the southern states in the 1860's) is illegal because it was the collective people of the nation as a whole, not simply southern voters & residents, of which had elected to add them to the union in the first place. This does leave open the possibility of a "consensual" disunion, but the the political process for doing so is undefined and many would probably prefer it remained so.

To us, if one has access to truly representative government, particularly in a system rooted in federalism, what need is there to plan for an eventual divorce?

The language amendment, i see no problem with having. America has never had an official language, though there are plenty of people (admittedly many in my current state of Texas) who need to be reminded of this. I was born in Louisiana and so have studied french since i was 5 or so and the thought of Louisiana having a sister (Quebec) with whom she can nurture her distinct cultural heritage is up lifting.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 09, 2014 3:00 pm

You are correct that this reaction is very much anchored in the American psyche,

However the proposed amendment is not enabling unilateral secession, it is defining multilateral consent based secession! It addresses the reality that members join into a contract with responsabilities and duties that must be accounted for if they decide to pull out. Hence they cannot achieve a multilateral exit without the support of most other member states and the federal government. As things stand states can already exit the union lawfully through a conditional amendment. The civil war happened because the south skipped this process in favour of a unilateral declaration (forcing the hand of the federal government). The proposed amendment simply formalizes this by making joining or exiting have the same requirement as any constitutional amendment. I studied and researched this and the Supreme Court in fact states that while unilateral exit is not permissible (just like you can't walk away from a lawful contract) it is possible to negotiate an exit if it takes into account the interests of all stake-holders and satisfies them that such interests are properly addressed hence gaining their consent for such an action (look to Scotland and Britain next week for another example of civilized divorce talks).

The other side of this medal is for joining. Your congress has a dismal 7% of support among Americans and as things currently stand they are the sole arbiters of who can join the United States or not. As a Canadian, I have difficulty joining a country that could all of sudden welcome Saudia Arabia as a member state if enough corruption was greased through the cogs of the socialized hub of lobbying (Washington). I have a big problem with that and I'm sure a lot of other westerners who are sympathetic towards the idea of a united west are also weary of this potential for abuse where all of a sudden you are stuck in a country where common people think that you can't leave and have zero effective control over who joins. If the United States came to include all of central and south America for example, it would be seen as problematic from the perspective of a Quebecer or Icelander, because our microcosms might suddenly become subsumed in a greater democratic tyranny where subsidiarity in government is eliminated in favor of imposing a federalized bilingualism of say, English and Spanish. Anyway I disgress but you get my point I hope! I'm simply floating examples, not going in the trench over them.
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 09, 2014 4:57 pm

As i said, there is no law or amendment in the constitution which would forbid, say the state of Texas, from seeking through ballot initiatives and state/federal resolutions to exit the union, there is simply no formal procedure from doing so. If i had to guess, such a process would have to involve no less than a 2/3rds (the magic number in our constitution) ratification by the States and probably federal approval as well but such a step would likely be met with defeat. I can not imagine one state voting yes on such an initiative.

In terms of the Scottish vote for independence, beyond my general opinion that independence for Scotland would be true madness, i think Britain is playing it cool in order to seem in control, if they were truly panicking they might inadvertently lend credence to the idea. While i am sympathetic to the idea of all the West banding together and choosing a path of deeper integration, i don't believe the United States would choose to take the bigger step of consolidating countries with anyone but Canada (MAYBE the Brits if they finally get fed up with the EU and it becomes necessary for them to find an alternative path lol). Our whole purpose in pursing this idea would be to weaken the influence places like Saudi Arabia has on us.

Our congress.... is terrible lol. There truly is no defense of them at this point they only thing which lifts my spirits is that eventually Gerrymandering will be declared illegal, which is how so many people manage to be reelected despite being so far away from the public on just about every issue. Here in Texas, whites are very over represented in many (if not most) voting districts. I believe your fair representation amendment could nicely address that, if it hasn't been before hand. Again, i believe the main concern most in the states would have about the succession amendment, is that it would feel as if we were setting up a "revolving door" to membership, no matter how unlikely such succession movements would ultimately be.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bearsy » Sep 09, 2014 5:58 pm

Americalex wrote:What is certain is that a uniting would totally strengthen our hand against those that wish to rain hate and death upon us lol Here are some of the amendments that I think would help bolster support while fixing some of the structural problems plaguing our political systems:

  • Entering/Exiting Amendment : Existing state can exit if obtains support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. Potential state can join if achieves support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. This ensure that hostile nations can't join and that the union remains consent based.
  • Subsidiarity Amendment: Member states would have the ability to select their own official language(s) and religion(s), As it was the case in the past, and in the British sense (not exclusive of other religions). Obviously member states could continue to elect to have no official language or official religion. Humanism would be an available religion. This could basically pave the way for accomodating all of the West, from Quebec to Norway to Israel.
  • Shared Responsability Amendment : Based on the Canadian notion of shared competencies between the federal and provincial governments in certain areas where interests overlap, namely immigration: soft control over selection at the state level with security clearance of applicants controlled federally.
  • Representative Government Amendment : Clarify that constitutional Monarchy is an acceptable form of representative government at the state level hence allowing countries like Canada, Japan, Norway, Britain etc. to eventually join without disrupting their traditional institutions. Lieutenant Governors would assume the role and function of classic republican system state Governors, hence be elected in like manner but as "branch office managers" for the head of state(s). States would obviously have to include a state level constitutional amendment ensuring the presence of a mechanism allowing them to adopt a republican form of government if the constituents to wish it, and vice-versa.
There are more possibilities that would be able to address things like financial and economic concerns, but those are the crucial ones which I feel should be given consideration in the interest of resolving the political impasses that prevent meaningful progress towards a combination of our nations.

Are these points for you personally or do you believe these are the concerns of most other people (Canadians?) who don't wish to join with the USA?

I understand some Canadians may wish to keep some existing things the same, like you mentioned with the option of keeping the symbolism of the monarchy. But why the need for states to have their own official religion? That is not something Canadians currently have and I don't understand how that would be a roadblock or concern for joining the USA.
User avatar
Bearsy
Opponent
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: May 03, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 09, 2014 7:35 pm

TexanforUNA wrote:As i said, there is no law or amendment in the constitution which forbids, say the state of Texas, from seeking through ballot initiatives and state/federal resolutions to exit the union, there is simply no formal procedure outlying specifications to do so. If i had to guess, such a process would have to involve no less than a 2/3rd (the magic number in our constitution) ratification by the States and probably federal approval as well; such a step would likely be met with defeat. I can not imagine one state voting yes on such an initiative, even in today's polarized political climate.

In terms of the Scottish vote for independence, beyond my general opinion that independence for Scotland would be true madness, i think Britain is playing it cool in order to seem in control, if they were truly panicking they might inadvertently lend credence to the idea. While i am sympathetic to the idea that one day, all the West will band together and choose a path of deeper integration, i don't believe the United States would choose to take the bigger step of consolidating countries with anyone but Canada (MAYBE the Brits if they finally get fed up with the EU and it became necessary for them to find an alternative path lol). As someone born and raised here, this idea appeals to me because i believe in North America's unique position: particularly in regards to geography. I believe our geological position ties our destines and we would be fools not to fully realize this. But i don't think you have to worry so much about places like Saudi Arabia joining. Our whole purpose in pursing this idea would be to weaken the influence of such totalitarian states have on us.

Our congress.... is terrible lol. There truly is no defense of them at this point they only thing which lifts my spirits is that eventually Gerrymandering will be declared illegal, which is how so many people manage to be reelected despite being so far away from the public on just about every issue. Here in Texas, whites are very over represented in many (if not most) voting districts. I believe your fair representation amendment could nicely address that, if it hasn't been before hand. Again, i believe the main concern most in the states would have about the succession amendment, is that it would feel as if we were setting up a "revolving door" to membership, no matter how unlikely such succession movements would ultimately be.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 09, 2014 9:37 pm

@Bearsy
They are points for me personally if the goal is achieving majority support on both sides. And I'm not talking symbolism of Monarchy, I'm talking continuance of actual constitutional monarchies. As for the official religion thing, I envision it the same as one does language: a state can have no official language, one or many. Similarly a state should be able to have no official religion, one or many. Prior to the incremental socialization of their constitution, American states had official religions. This was only removed once the bill of rights began to be understood as applying to states also, rather than the classical understanding according to which it was a set of restraints against the federal government only. Canada had official religions too (Anglican in Upper Canada and Catholic in Lower Canada). England still has Anglicanism as its official religion. I mean it in the classical Western sense of "not at the exclusion of other religions". Examples of capitalist pro-western nations that could never join unless this is envisaged (and I don't mean our generation, our generation Canada and the USA joining would be spectacular enough, I'm talking long term consent based consolidation here): Norway, Japan, Israel all have an official religion. I also feel that states should be able to have say Humanism as its official religion, that way people like you would be able to compete against more classical religions by demonstrating that your region is more successful as a result of your official humanist stance. What about you, would you ask Japan, Norway and Israel (examples) to renegue on their national character (official religion) as a requisite to joining a wider union? An "otherwise you are free to stay independent countries thanks" kind of stance I guess?

@TexanforUNA
No one said it was easy to "walk away' from a mortgage for example, just because it doesn't seem easy doesn't mean it would be impossible. It would simply have to go through the loops. Most states wouldn't want to keep another state by force I think, against their will. The concerns would be more pragmatic, like compensations for investments made with the notion that they would remain inside the country etc. But yes, it is a big roadblock, I know. There was a poster here called Pieman and he left the forums because that notion simply pissed him off too much. To him the United States is an indivisible country, à la France. But let's be honest here I've met plenty of Americans who don't have an issue with it either. It really depends on the person's background I guess. My idea would be a union of our two nations in order to develop the Arctic, jumpstarting the world economy in the process and using this growth as a springboard to the stars. Heck I'd even formalize an amendment to define the federal government's role in strategic exploration and settling of the solar system, and I'd name the expanded country "America", along with "God bless America" as the new national anthem. I'd keep the door open for other first world countries who are mutually friendly and have a desire to follow suite, and I'd help the rest get up to par so that they too could eventually petition to join. The first imagineers of the American adventure envisioned such a destiny, but for it to unfold as such I think Americans need to take a fresh look at the original Confederation and see how restoring some of the notions it contained might prove a remedy to both the current issues as well as a catalyst for making the annexation proposition attractive.

P.S. About the gerrymandering in Texas along racialist lines (or is it rural/urban as per immigrants usually preferring large urban centers over small towns?), do you have any ideas as to the type of arrangement that could lead to a resolution and solution?
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 09, 2014 11:30 pm

Don't under estimate our commitment to the union lol, that's partly what started the civil war in the first place. I just can see no rationale under which the states would say we would ever be stronger/better with Texas outside the Union, than inside. Each territory which petitioned the united states for state hood ratified the constitution of the united states did so with the understanding this was a perpetual union. What else would "One Nation, Indivisible..." mean? I would argue, and I'm sure many would agree, that it is our very belief in the strength and finality of our union which gives us our national confidence and resolve. I could honestly list dozens of other places where our founders both in their personal and Government writings assert their desire for an indivisible country of free men. With our current, and certainly enhanced for the 21st century bill/charter of rights why would a secession (i realized i've totally been spelling that wrong all day lol) bill be necessary? We have both implied and enamored powers and rights here, could not the ability to seek a consensual disunion be simply implied? (Or as I prefer it, as it is now lol. A technical possibility, but one so awful as to be left ambigious, unthought of, and vanquished on the battlefield of history).

I'll be the first to say, as a liberal living in Texas, that the federal government needs to reenergize the concept of state authority, no matter how difficult. I believe our Canadian brothers and sisters can help us in this regard. But it would be wrong to assert our founding father's did not envision a strong federal government, that was the core of many of their first debates, as fellow congressmen ect. I'm not saying there aren't some things perhaps reconsidering from the Articles of Confederation but that system failed for some pretty concrete reasons, and not surprisingly the Southern Confederacy went on to demonstrate those failing again. Under the Articles, each state essentially was it's own independent nation. They were in control of all their own trade (between themselves) and other nations, they flat out ignored requests from congress for tax money (because all it could do was ask!), and much worse this system (combined with the vast distances seperating the original 13) caused many of our people to identify primarily with their individual state (another seed which would blossom with the civil war). Our challenge would be in liberating enough power so that ordinary citizens ect have every incentive to be active participants and come up with solutions fortheir own local governments but we can't decentralize to the point of losing national coherence.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bearsy » Sep 10, 2014 11:52 am

Americalex wrote:@Bearsy
They are points for me personally if the goal is achieving majority support on both sides. And I'm not talking symbolism of Monarchy, I'm talking continuance of actual constitutional monarchies. As for the official religion thing, I envision it the same as one does language: a state can have no official language, one or many. Similarly a state should be able to have no official religion, one or many. Prior to the incremental socialization of their constitution, American states had official religions. This was only removed once the bill of rights began to be understood as applying to states also, rather than the classical understanding according to which it was a set of restraints against the federal government only. Canada had official religions too (Anglican in Upper Canada and Catholic in Lower Canada). England still has Anglicanism as its official religion. I mean it in the classical Western sense of "not at the exclusion of other religions". Examples of capitalist pro-western nations that could never join unless this is envisaged (and I don't mean our generation, our generation Canada and the USA joining would be spectacular enough, I'm talking long term consent based consolidation here): Norway, Japan, Israel all have an official religion. I also feel that states should be able to have say Humanism as its official religion, that way people like you would be able to compete against more classical religions by demonstrating that your region is more successful as a result of your official humanist stance. What about you, would you ask Japan, Norway and Israel (examples) to renegue on their national character (official religion) as a requisite to joining a wider union? An "otherwise you are free to stay independent countries thanks" kind of stance I guess?

Depends on the kind of Union. An EU union, sure, be all loosey goosey. But in a more intimate federation like in the USA or Canada I'd want there to be an expectation of ongoing limitations and responsibilities for the states, too, as well as the federal government. We often talk about the limitations of the Federal government. As part of the agreement there should be limitations outlined for the state governments as well. The agreement for the limitations on states would have to strike a balance between state sovereignty and human rights. IMO official religion and language, as symbolic as they may be, are still symbols of anti-freedom and should not be of the ownership of the state or federal government.

EG: Would you be comfortable being in a Union with a state that is officially Islamic?
User avatar
Bearsy
Opponent
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: May 03, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Windwalker » Sep 10, 2014 3:09 pm

TexanforUNA wrote:all [of them] essentially declare unilateral succession (As performed by the southern states in the 1860's) is illegal because it was the collective people of the nation as a whole, not simply southern voters & residents, of which had elected to add them to the union in the first place. This does leave open the possibility of a "consensual" disunion, but the the political process for doing so is undefined and many would probably prefer it remained so.

I know this wasn't part of your major point, but I wanted to point out that the Secessions in the south following the election of Lincoln were a sham anyway, produced by corruption and tallying irregularities. With Texas being the exception, ALL of the States that seceded had large to slim majorities in favor of not seceding, and this is only counting persons with the right to vote at the time. Research has shown North Carolina voters, for example, were opposed to it by more than a two-thirds margin. (A fact not lost on Sherman's men, who became much more courteous upon crossing this State Line.)
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-many-southerners-favored-secession.23264/

Americalex wrote:Entering/Exiting Amendment : Existing state can exit if obtains support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. Potential state can join if achieves support of 75% of the governments of member states and the federal government. This ensure that hostile nations can't join and that the union remains consent based.

This seems like a waste of time (and paper) to me. If there ever were to be such an almost impossible amount of support for such a move, it would happen anyway at that point. It would be like debating whether the pig should be slaughtered or not, whilst the bacon be already frying.

I think the United Kingdom is doing it right, where upon a secession vote coming up in Scotland, they approve a time-limited pre-stamped approval of how to deal with a potential "yes" vote.
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bayowolf » Sep 10, 2014 5:54 pm

@'Alex:
You wrote:This was only removed once the bill of rights began to be understood as applying to states also, rather than the classical understanding according to which it was a set of restraints against the federal government only.


  1. The 4 or 5 States that had "established" churches had all disestablished by 1833. The "incorporation" (applying Bill of Rights rights to the States pursuant to the 14th Amendment) of the freedom of religion did not begin until 1947 with the Supreme Court decision of Everson v. Board of Education (330 U.S. 1).
  2. In olden times, the establishment of religion served both the Church and the State in a mutually beneficial way:
    1. The Church benefitted by the State's using its coercive powers to "maintain the True Piety" (passing laws that are in line with Doctrine, etc.).
    2. The State benefitted from the Church's applying religious education and social sanctions to maintain a quiescent citizenry. Also, the Church can help convince the people that El Jefe Supremo is ordained by God Himself to be El Jefe Supremo.
    So, I have to ask: If we're not going to have that kind of establishment but, instead have the more benign form of establishment as you described (an "Establishment Lite", if you will), then what would be the point? To have royal weddings in a church built 1,000 years ago with tax dollars?
  3. If, among other things, socialism is the top-down approach of organizing society, then I maintain that any form of establishment (even if it establishes multiple churches such the Church of the Subgenius, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and, of course, the "Church" of Humanism) would be essentially socialist in nature. The reason for this is that anytime a church become established it appears to us helots that there's an elite to we can aspire to join by join that church.

Note: The "True Piety" quote is how Calvin (your buddy!) described the One and Only reason to have a State. Of course, like many another egomaniacal tyrant, the True Piety is a religion that he made. Geneva was the original Jonestown.

I'm inspired by Calvin; I'm going to take over Phoenix and start a new religion: BAYOWOLFISM!!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God. --Thomas Merton
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 10, 2014 6:26 pm

Of course you are correct that there needs to be a balance between federal, regional and individual rights. At the regional level this is done through state constitutions, and through federal amendments defining the common set of values that regulate the union at large. But I don't think the original American confederation was as pro-regional as some make it out to be.

Here's an example of a reputed economist backed by George. W. Bush who is taking a fresh look at this:

Let States Do the Tax-Collecting Dirty Work
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... dirty-work

As for the union being perpetual: it certainly perpetuates itself even if one or multiple states exit the union! The indivisible notion comes directly from a French Socialist, hence why I was referring to the "à la France". It is an innovation dating from 1893 and only made mandatory and official in WW2.

The point you're missing is that I precisely laid out the possibility for states to NOT have any official religion if most people don't want one. Why insist on other states being like you against their will is what baffles me as a capitalist who believes in subsidiarity in government.

What about joining the union, you keep referring to the notion that defining an exit is useless, but why are you opposed to refining an entry mechanism that isn't simply at the behest of a corrupt congress that is outstanding for its incompetence and unpopularity? You are satisfied with the status quo which entrusts them alone with the notion of welcoming other members, basically?

What about the other proposed amendments, do they also become deal breakers for you, or generate hostility on the level of indifference and derision? Some of them seem to me like they are certainly more offensive and unacceptable than the freedom of religion and entering/exiting the union ones.

----

Bayowolfism m.n. Heretical protestant cult recouping™ liberal bible belted blue dog army veteran men and androsexual females analogous to the reconstructionist Judaism movement aside from the fact that it promotes Jesus as an effective atheist on top of the naturalist interpretations of scriptural prophecy in the context of tribal meanderings to be contextualized as having limited value based on the ignorant and imperfect nature of the era in which they were formulated.

Recouping t.v. Bayowolfist religious term and concept conveying their anthropomorphized notion of redemption from a materialist perspective, usually understood and accepted by their Orthodox Arizonian research center as being accomplished through physical intercourse achieved inside or outside of wedlock via bodily exchanges of fluids leading to mutually beneficial orgasms to all of the participants.

P.S. The innovation of mass production residential air conditioning has enabled droves of liberal Americans to settle into the arid South-West of the United States, dramatically transforming its demographics.
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bearsy » Sep 10, 2014 8:24 pm

P.S. The innovation of mass production residential air conditioning has enabled droves of liberal Americans to settle into the arid South-West of the United States, dramatically transforming its demographics.


lol do you mean white americans? or are you saying liberals can't stand the heat!
User avatar
Bearsy
Opponent
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: May 03, 2012 11:27 pm
Location: Alberta

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Americalex » Sep 10, 2014 8:45 pm

I'm saying that prior to this you had masonic pseudo-christian protestant snake handlers pushing their gay ass KKK agenda using their "ecclesiastical communities" *polite catholic verbiage* to recruit and perpetrate their racist fagness upon the descendants of their ancestors' former slaves. That crowd was definitely white... descendants of the slave owners and traders of the early days. The heat made em nut cases basically, it was the way they coped I guess.
"Entre le fort et le faible, c’est la liberté qui opprime et la loi qui affranchit." - Lacordaire
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 19736
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby TexanforUNA » Sep 10, 2014 8:53 pm

I'm not against giving the states/providences more powers in terms of entering members at all! I spent most of today trying to think of more powers that could be promised to the states and providences in the new union, and that certainly could be one of them. I suppose i was just assuming your reasoning behind that was because you really did, as in your first example, fret that America was going to be offering membership to places like Saudi Arabia. Even with the little faith i have in the current congress, i don't expect them to start offering membership to despotic states.
User avatar
TexanforUNA
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Aug 31, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Bringing up the conversation.

Postby Bayowolf » Sep 11, 2014 2:33 am

Americalex wrote:Bayowolfism m.n. Heretical protestant cult recouping™ liberal bible belted blue dog army veteran men and androsexual females analogous to the reconstructionist Judaism movement aside from the fact that it promotes Jesus as an effective atheist on top of the naturalist interpretations of scriptural prophecy in the context of tribal meanderings to be contextualized as having limited value based on the ignorant and imperfect nature of the era in which they were formulated.

Recouping t.v. Bayowolfist religious term and concept conveying their anthropomorphized notion of redemption from a materialist perspective, usually understood and accepted by their Orthodox Arizonian research center as being accomplished through physical intercourse achieved inside or outside of wedlock via bodily exchanges of fluids leading to mutually beneficial orgasms to all of the participants.

P.S. The innovation of mass production residential air conditioning has enabled droves of liberal Americans to settle into the arid South-West of the United States, dramatically transforming its demographics.

ROTFLAMFAO WTFME!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God. --Thomas Merton
User avatar
Bayowolf
Supporter
 
Posts: 1513
Joined: Jun 10, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Arizona

Next

Return to Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
cron