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

[Rhys]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

[roshi]

Go print some more money and see what happens.

Also, you lose national sovereignty. The national sovereignty is what people are getting all mad about, the NAU would basically be more powerful than our constitution.

[Rhys]

Go print some more money and see what happens.

Also, you lose national sovereignty.

so your problem is with central banks, not the NAU?

[roshi]

so your problem is with central banks, not the NAU?

No, I believe people are all about the national sovereignty. There is a whole forum dedicated to this on this forum, just scroll down or click "liberty forest" at the top.

[Dorfsmith]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

Go read Brave New World, 1984, etc. and then tell us if you think it's a good idea.

[Rhys]

No, I believe people are all about the national sovereignty.

Isn't that just states righst vs federal control, only with nation states instead of provincial states?

[-lotus-]

Id rather have my own country, my own set of individual liberties and freedoms and not have to worry about sending my children to war at the behest of some autonomous world agency

[roshi]

Go read Brave New World, 1984, etc. and then tell us if you think it's a good idea.

Yea, I agree. 1984 was one of the scariest books I've ever read.

[Truth Warrior]

Ask Ron. Or heaven forbid, do some independent research.

[Rhys]

I read 1984 and it is scarry... but in theory, 1984 does not require an NAU just because one existed in the book. What's more, an NAU doesn't require Big Brother.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm trying to sort out what I really think.
edit: don't be a turd truth muffin

[freelance]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

If you've got any family or friends in Europe, just ask them.

If you have to ask, you might want to delay your run as a Ron Paul Republican for a few election cycles, at least until you are clear why the NAU is a bad idea.

P.S. The EU is not "doing fine." The constitution was rammed through as a treaty without a referendum, the taxes are over the top, laws on the books are growing exponentially, thanks to Brussels, and Europe is a larger control grid than the US. In fact, in England or Great Britain, or whatever they call themselves these days, they are going to have to obtain yearly permits to smoke, and you had better not smoke without having the permit on hand and ready to show. Are those enough reasons for you?

[All Seeing Eye]

As someone who lives in the EU I can tell you that all IS NOT FINE. The economic freedom of people who live here is virtually non-existent, it is the most surveilled group of ocuntries in the world, the laws regarding freedom of movement are far in excess of anything that would be acceptable to you guys in the USA and MOST of the people in these Nation States are VERY VERY unhappy about what their UNelected offcials have done.

Don't believe the hype.

[Rhys]

As someone who lives in the EU I can tell you that all IS NOT FINE. The economic freedom of people who live here is virtually non-existent, it is the most surveilled group of ocuntries in the world, the laws regarding freedom of movement are far in excess of anything that would be acceptable to you guys in the USA and MOST of the people in these Nation States are VERY VERY unhappy about what their UNelected offcials have done.

Don't believe the hype.

Thanks. finaly a reason that doesn't involve me being scared for no reason.

cool, and everyone who said I should just know and why even bother asking.... maybe you know everything already, but I don't.

[abruzz0]

Continental amnesty

[UK4Paul]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

The European Union is doing just great... if you don't mind living under a de facto beaurocratic dictatorship.

That's why its "laws" are called Directives. They basically tell national governments what to do.

[Cali4RonPaul]

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

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

[Broadlighter]

Go to this website:

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the articles that start with
Part 1, Part 2..., etc.

They will open up to Ed Griffin's article "The Future is Calling." The first four parts are pdfs and the last is a video.

The real conflict behind world events is between individualism versus collectivism. Europe has succeeded in moving toward collectivism, but in truth, many people there are fed up with the big government nature of it all. In fact, a couple of years there was a popular vote for adopting more EU policies and it was soundly defeated in France and the Netherlands.

Respect for the dignity and humanity of individuals is what the Ron Paul/Liberty Revolution is fighting for. The NAU agenda disguises itself as a structure that will help people economically, but in truth it's a power play to bring the Canadian, American and Mexican economies under a single roof, so that the oligarchs planning it can control it for their own benefit. Sacrificing a few individuals for the sake of the greater number is their MO. If you read Griffin's article, you'll see the evidence.

[Verad]

If the provinces of Canada and the divisions of Mexico (didn't learn as much about Mexico) were to secede from their respective countries and then apply for statehood to the US, that would be one thing, and I don't believe that there would be much of a problem if that were to happen.

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

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

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

[freelance]

Thanks. finaly a reason that doesn't involve me being scared for no reason.

cool, and everyone who said I should just know and why even bother asking.... maybe you know everything already, but I don't.

Research is your friend!

[Rhys]

If you've got any family or friends in Europe, just ask them.

If you have to ask, you might want to delay your run as a Ron Paul Republican for a few election cycles, at least until you are clear why the NAU is a bad idea.

P.S. The EU is not "doing fine." The constitution was rammed through as a treaty without a referendum, the taxes are over the top, laws on the books are growing exponentially, thanks to Brussels, and Europe is a larger control grid than the US. In fact, in England or Great Britain, or whatever they call themselves these days, they are going to have to obtain yearly permits to smoke, and you had better not smoke without having the permit on hand and ready to show. Are those enough reasons for you?

so I gotta tow the party line now?

i asked what's so bad about it, I didn't say I'd go vote 'aye' for the NAU bill. don't think if i'm in congress i'd ever vote on something without asking if I'm being prejudice first.

[Rhys]

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

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

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

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

[Cali4RonPaul]

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

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

Speaking from experience, it has been extremely frustrating to sell products and services to many countries because of their protectionist measures.. The only way I see to mitigate this is that these countries are made to submit to jurisdiction in line with our interests in a global organization..

[Rhys]

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/19/ron-paul-discusses-nafta-superhighway-on-lou-dobbs-tonight/

speak of the devil lol

oh yeah... i guess i wonder what you mean by "made to submit"

[Cali4RonPaul]

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/19/ron-paul-discusses-nafta-superhighway-on-lou-dobbs-tonight/

speak of the devil lol

oh yeah... i guess i wonder what you mean by "made to submit"

For Example china's currency is not a free market currency, it is pegged and its fundamentals are dictated by the chinese government.. Much success was made by the WTO forcing china to accept foreign made automotive parts from Canada the USA etc. to be used in their cars, removing barriers.

[Rhys]

If the provinces of Canada and the divisions of Mexico (didn't learn as much about Mexico) were to secede from their respective countries and then apply for statehood to the US, that would be one thing, and I don't believe that there would be much of a problem if that were to happen.

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

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

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

I'm sold on that argument.

What do you think of this:

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

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

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

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

[Rhys]

For Example china's currency is not a free market currency, it is pegged and its fundamentals are dictated by the chinese government.. Much success was made by the WTO forcing china to accept foreign made automotive parts from Canada the USA etc. to be used in their cars, removing barriers.

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

[Cali4RonPaul]

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

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

[Rhys]

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

werd.

now i gotta think more.

[slacker921]

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

[Verad]

I'm sold on that argument.

What do you think of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know that my example was pretty bizarre, but I felt the contrast would be illuminating. I hope you're having as much fun reading my crazy musings as I am writing them. :P

[Andrew76]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

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

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

Conglomeration of countries only means a consolidation of power. If you're like, oh...99.99999% of Ron Paul supporters, you probably naturally have repellant feelings towards those who seek power over others. D.C. is seeking to consolidate power, the U.N. is trying to consolidate power, the NAU is a means to consolidate power, etc., etc. The more power someone has over you, the less your life is your own. It's an illusion. We do not need all these people with power over us, whether for our protection or otherwise. Like England didn't need a king who ruled by divine right, the U.S. does not need the NAU, and we certainly do not need the U.N. to have more authority over us. It's the same old shit, again and again, money and power.

[Rhys]

yeah, we'd always have a Chineese president.

[Verad]

Oh, duh! I forgot the last, and possibly most important, problem. [Edit: of establishing a larger government by allowing other nation-states apply for US statehood]

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

[billyjoeallen]

It's a sovereignty issue. A union with the socialist government of Canada and the Kleptocracy of Mexico would threaten the free market even more than it already is.

I honestly don't see any way to reverse the growth of government without a revival of free market economics. I really don't know how we can accomplish that. Any ideas?

[Rhys]

ok, i'm totaly off world government again. I had to entertain the thought.

[Dieseler]

Well I'm late then since your off the bandwagon, but one lady from England posted this here and I copied it in case I needed it later.

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

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


Thanks Judy.
Lest we forget what we still have.

[Ladiliberty]

Look here for our future Parts 1-4 We are headed on the same road the eu paved and the uk is fighting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR83juHjCuo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUFvx4kH1qw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVEwUxu9Onw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfE85JCqpBQ&feature=related

UK WATCHDOG SITE ON EU INTRUSION
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

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

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

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

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

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

It is a nightmare and will get worse.

[1000-points-of-fright]

The only way I would support an NAU type of arrangement is if all 94 states/provinces (50 US + 13 Canadian + 31 Mexican) were essentially autonomous and united under an extremely limited Federal Constitutional government. Kind of like what we're supposed to have right now in the US. You would be a citizen of your state not the NAU, but you would have freedom of travel and commerce between all 94 states.

[Goldwater Conservative]

All government should be local. I often think even the county level is too much. Why should a city on one side of the Florida peninsula, for example, be able to tell another on the other side what to do, aside from leaving it alone? Governments always have a tendency to usurp liberty, and at least if it's decentralized I'll have an easier time changing it or can move somewhere where freedom is still respected.

[Fox McCloud]

The only reason the EU is doing well, right now, is that their currency is NOT the world's reserve currency (ours is). We have the distinct advantage of exporting our inflation to the world (which keep the dollar the same, here at home)...sadly though, this has two drawbacks--we can under-export (which we've done, and why we have massive inflation at home), and it gives the foreign nations to buy out our own country from under us.

The EU is doing well because people perceive the dollar as weak, and the Euro as being strong. However, that said, from what I've heard by a few smarter-than-average Europeans, despite the fact that they are not the world's reserve currency, they have a housing bubble, not to mention a few others...and their their economy is in just as much trouble as ours is...or at least will be, the signs just aren't fully showing yet.

Either way, when the dollar is considered useless, the Euro will become the world's reserve currency...guess what they'll do? The same thing as us...the only thing is, they won't be able to do it for nearly as long, as they're already in trouble, not to mention they didn't have near the influence (militarily or economically) as we did.

Not sure what would happen after the Euro and the Dollar crashed...a NAU+EU currency? Geesh, that's a scary thought....though it wouldn't surprise me.

Russia is the one who's sitting well right now--they have 0 debt, and 100% of their currency is backed by gold, silver, platinum, oil, or natural gas....of course, I don't think they're doing it for their people, I think they see what's coming, and they're trying to set themselves up to become a world power once things are pulled out from underneath them.

Also, let's not forget the EU is collectivist over individualist...yes, it might appear they have more rights than us (on the surface), but they're collectivist rights, not individualistic rights.

An excellent example of this (so I've heard) is that if you're a OB doctor, and a woman wants and abortion from you, if you refuse, your medical license can be revoked (before the EU formed it wasn't like this)--definitely a collectivist right there...not to mention (IMHO) an immoral one.

Of course, the UN supports population control...why wouldn't the EU?

[Chester Copperpot]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

I used to feel somewhat similar on the topic.. But how does this grab ya.. There are a few countries in Europe that have voted down the European Constitution yet there is still a European Parliament meeting and making laws...

Thats not too far from Congress voting down a law and the president just going ahead with it anyway..

[JS4Pat]

Everyone who said I should just know and why even bother asking.... maybe you know everything already, but I don't.

Good thread - Good Question.

It should make everyone THINK and ARTICULATE logical responses.

And that is always a good thing

[AisA1787]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

OP, I hear ya man. The problem is not the size of the union (well not really... local government is always better than remote government, but a country needs to be a certain size to defend itself. I think we're capable of defending ourselves at our current size). The problem is a lack of sovereignty, lack of accountability, and lack of our directly elected representatives making the choices based on what we want. Just because the NAU would cover a larger geographical area and would have more people, doesn't necessarily make it evil. The problem is the lack of responsibility that the EU/NAU/whateverU leaders have to the citizens because they're unelected by members of every country (well half of them anyway... one half is elected by members of every country, the other half is mostly made of national leaders who were elected within their own country but not the the EU at large... it's complicated), with almost zero accountability (e.g., in the NAU, we wouldn't elect the Mexican Prez or the Canadian Prime Minister, but they would sure as hell be in charge of making rules for us. That would suck. See?). It's more or less a return to kings and serfs, except this time the kings are doing it "for your own good." Know what I mean? I would actually like to admit a few more states to the union, but I refuse to give up our national sovereignty to an unelected group of corrupt rulers. See the difference?

For example, England and the rest of the UK is bound by EU laws, even though England's parliament doesn't make these laws, and can be overruled by these laws:




http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/civil_rights/the_european_union.htm#The_member_countries_of_the _European_Uni

How European Union law relates to UK law

Under UK law, Acts of Parliament are not challengeable unless they conflict with European law.

Apart from Treaties, there are two main ways in which European law is made:-

* regulations
* directives.



If the NAU were analogous to the EU, our Congress could pass laws that could be completely made null and void by the NAU leaders, who would consist of our national leaders as well as national leaders from Canada and Mexico -- leaders that we didn't elect and therefore have no accountability to us. I don't think that is the best direction for our country. The idea behind our form of government is that the citizens directly elect the leaders, who should then make laws and decisions based on what the citizens want. Obviously it doesn't always work out this way because people don't invest enough time into figuring out who to vote for (otherwise Ron Paul would be getting many more votes!). But at least US citizens have a say in how the US government operates. The UK's citizens and parliament can be completely overruled by the EU.

Let me refer you to this thread, explaining why it sucks to live in England under the EU (not that England was perfect before, but it's gotten much worse):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=118490

[Carole]

What is your prooof that the EU is doing "great"? I am speaking of the people, not the entity.

[Carole]

The SPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. already ARE more powerful than our Constitution in case you had not noticed.

[Agora]

Vladimir Bukowski explains it great http://youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

[Hiki]

I'm still a youngster but I think I can share my two cents

I live in Finland which joined the EU in 1995, and we got the Euro in 2002. Now theres a couple things that I think are just great with the EU. Of course with the euro, you dont have to go through a lot of trouble of changing money and comparing prices when traveling around (except England and Scotland). Traveling is relatively easy, all you need is a passport and there you go. And then there's these things which I dont yet care about like moving your capital, moving your workforce etc. around the EU.

BUT, then there's these directives and laws they throw at us. A good small example of this is the swing they got us in primary school. The swing we had in the yard for a long time was a great one, simple and fun. But then came along the EU-directive-swing, and it was just a huge piece of shit. I couldn't believe how bad it was. So yeah, basically these directives are not laws but they give a suggestion what we should do. Germany and Finland are pretty much the only countries who follow these directives blindly. They've done all these ridiculous directives about how curvy the bananas are and so on. Especially the Finnish agriculture has had some hard times during the EU. Every small farm has pretty much ended their production because of bankruptcy. Only the large farms are doing great. So the country-side has been an issue in elections lately, everyone promising to make things better in the country-side, but of course failing to do so.
Thank god the "EU-constitution" was rejected, even though they are trying to "reform" it. The good things I listed are great, and the EU should stay just like that, making some basic things easier. But when they start telling us what to do, how to do, it just drives me mad and that's why I think that in the end the EU is not a good thing to be in.
Thats why I would love to live in Norway or Switzerland, they're both doing just great. Although I cant speak the language :p

Thats my two cents.

[bj72]

EU follows the UN Rights of the Child. This sounds great, but it really is against parental rights and puts our children in the hands of the state. Hillary and Obama support this type of legislation. I'm guessing McCain may as well, but I'm not sure. I'd love to see any or all three be asked to support parental rights (www.parentalrights.org, there's a petition...please sign it). I'm guessing they would not. They are only for "freedoms" that are state controlled.

If we join the EU or for a NAU you can kiss parental rights goodbye. You no longer will be the parent to your children, ultimately the state will have authority at any time to step in to do what they deem best for your child.

They've done such a great job in the public school system, what could go wrong? (Note sarcasm please).

[ThePieSwindler]

This is a tough one for me - im against bureaucracy, strong arm government, political consolidation etc, but for the free flow of capital and labor, with literally no barriers to such. The problem with economic integration is the politicians always make sure that political bureaucracy is added and power is consolidated. So its a win-lose situation either way...

[Dr.3D]

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

Ask bernanke and you would probably get this answer.....

http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=HeWEq4aq-ZkJ&imgurl=www.timescall.com/assets/newspics/022808b1a.jpg

The economy is doing fine, what's so bad about the Federal Reserve? :rolleyes:

[Kotin]

its all moving towards 1 union. thats why!

EU. NAU. AU( Asian Union) then, Global Union.

get it?

[Trigonx]

its all moving towards 1 union. thats why!

EU. NAU. AU( Asian Union) then, Global Union.

get it?

AU = African Union

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

[polomertz]

You can't disregard Central Banking in this debate. The Unions are just a means for larger Central Banking systems. The other issues surrounding it are side effects whether they be detrimental to society or not. The NAU and it's "AMERO" is the tool to extract wealth from a larger group of people. The more people the central bankers can hand monopoly money to, the more wealth they take, channel to the other elites, and remain in control. It's not about so called "unions" it's about holding people slaves to a single currency.

[Doktor_Jeep]

I am all for one world government.

It's easy to topple one tyranny than having to go around the world seeking out despots and stringing them up by their chicken bags.

[Agora]

http://www.index.hr/video/film.aspx?id=1052

not fine, not fine at all

[Flash]

The Eu isn't doing fine. Its similiar to that of a police state.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOzZMeOrl4

[Mini-Me]

OP, I hear ya man. The problem is not the size of the union (well not really... local government is always better than remote government, but a country needs to be a certain size to defend itself. I think we're capable of defending ourselves at our current size). The problem is a lack of sovereignty, lack of accountability, and lack of our directly elected representatives making the choices based on what we want. Just because the NAU would cover a larger geographical area and would have more people, doesn't necessarily make it evil. The problem is the lack of responsibility that the EU/NAU/whateverU leaders have to the citizens because they're unelected by members of every country (well half of them anyway... one half is elected by members of every country, the other half is mostly made of national leaders who were elected within their own country but not the the EU at large... it's complicated), with almost zero accountability (e.g., in the NAU, we wouldn't elect the Mexican Prez or the Canadian Prime Minister, but they would sure as hell be in charge of making rules for us. That would suck. See?). It's more or less a return to kings and serfs, except this time the kings are doing it "for your own good." Know what I mean? I would actually like to admit a few more states to the union, but I refuse to give up our national sovereignty to an unelected group of corrupt rulers. See the difference?

For example, England and the rest of the UK is bound by EU laws, even though England's parliament doesn't make these laws, and can be overruled by these laws:



If the NAU were analogous to the EU, our Congress could pass laws that could be completely made null and void by the NAU leaders, who would consist of our national leaders as well as national leaders from Canada and Mexico -- leaders that we didn't elect and therefore have no accountability to us. I don't think that is the best direction for our country. The idea behind our form of government is that the citizens directly elect the leaders, who should then make laws and decisions based on what the citizens want. Obviously it doesn't always work out this way because people don't invest enough time into figuring out who to vote for (otherwise Ron Paul would be getting many more votes!). But at least US citizens have a say in how the US government operates. The UK's citizens and parliament can be completely overruled by the EU.

Let me refer you to this thread, explaining why it sucks to live in England under the EU (not that England was perfect before, but it's gotten much worse):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=118490

It's not just the fact that bureaucrats are unelected and therefore unaccountable to the people and unrepresentative of them. If the power of government were decentralized, then size would not be quite as relevant, but because our power is currently centralized in Washington and the power of these unions would also be centralized, size is actually extremely relevant. The more centralized power is, the more unaccountable it is to the people, even if the officials ARE elected. You do seem to vaguely understand this, based on your comment regarding local vs. remote government, but the casual nature of that comment makes me wonder if you realize the magnitude of difference between local and remote government. When the seat of power is farther, individual votes count for less. In addition, the bigger government is and the more people it controls, the easier it becomes for that government to crush small bands of resistance - the larger a government becomes and the more people it governs, the larger dissident groups must become to reach a "critical mass." Also, when power is consolidated, it becomes even more attractive to evil, power-hungry people, and it's also a lot easier for special interests to lobby centralized power than decentralized power. Therefore, one huge, superpowerful regional government, even if elected, is much more dangerous and unaccountable than one huge, superpowerful national government! Size is quite important. Even if centralized power remained benevolent (which would never, ever happen), there are still some other major reasons why it's a bad idea: One is that not everyone is the same, so one-size fits all government can't make everybody happy (consider polarizing issues like abortion for example). Another is that when a centralized authority dictates policy for everyone, it's almost invariably a bad decision. Sometimes it's only bad for some of the people involved, but sometimes, it's bad for just about everyone (consider the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind, for example). Decentralization allows for experimentation and competition of policies - other jurisdictions copy and improve upon what works and avoid what doesn't work.

Also, another issue related to size: The larger the existing governments are, the less other governments exist. In the one-world government scenario, there are no other sovereign nations. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Big government is bad government, even if it the officials are elected.

You do raise a good point about defense of a country, but size in this case is all relative...for instance, if no nations banded together to form regional government, no other nations would "have to" in order to defend themselves from the larger force. The correct response to the rise of supranational government is not to fall into the same trap ourselves to "keep up" - rather, the correct response is to stay sovereign and encourage other nations to do the same by example. Let's pretend for a moment that the United States government was still accountable to the people, and that we were not ourselves marching toward the NAU. As regional governments around the world become larger and larger, they become more and more fascist, and other sovereign nations take note of that (Switzerland trying to stay out of the EU, for instance). Although this "world domination" type of takeover is not the same as Hitler's, it is still often a hostile takeover...and when a clear pattern of consolidation becomes established (as in World War II), it becomes a direct threat to our national sovereignty, and that is the point when we and other sovereign governments can form a temporary alliance to stop hostile expansionism. A noninterventionist foreign policy only applies when our sovereignty is not under threat by an attacking country or a pattern of hostile expansionism. Of course, in the real world today, this entire paragraph is irrelevant, since we're also moving in the same direction...

[aperetti]

Here's a a youtube comment from that video. Can smell the absurdity?


Grayh00d (2 days ago) Show Hide

Anti-EU Europeans are really stupid. Of course, EU governmental system should be improved, but the idea of EU is great, like the idea of Soviet Union (but communism spoiled the idea of union). Without EU you'll always be marionettes of big countries like USA or Russia. With EU you have a chance to be Number 1 in the world. You may lose a part of your independence inside EU, but you'll become more powerful and independent outside EU, on the world's scale.

[ThePieSwindler]

You can't disregard Central Banking in this debate. The Unions are just a means for larger Central Banking systems. The other issues surrounding it are side effects whether they be detrimental to society or not. The NAU and it's "AMERO" is the tool to extract wealth from a larger group of people. The more people the central bankers can hand monopoly money to, the more wealth they take, channel to the other elites, and remain in control. It's not about so called "unions" it's about holding people slaves to a single currency.

Something like that... i think it has less to do with "elites" and more to do with very overt sentiments. There is plenty wrong with the masses, some shadowy "elites" need not be blamed. There are control grids in every society, and there are elites, but they hardly have "plans" beyond normal human ambition, and many of them are probably let by some form of self-righteous do-gooder spirit than by pure evil. Humans are much more complex than that!

Central banking was ill-conceived in hindsight, but at the time it was considered essential to dealing with the business cycle. Hayek and Friedman did alot to disprove the need for a monopolized currency and a central bank as an institution, without having to attribute it to conspiracy theories.. although they might have some validity, you certainly cannot perfectly know the motives of EVERY person in power. Allt hat being said, a single currency is certainly not the most worrying issue of global power consolidation.

[Mini-Me]

Something like that... i think it has less to do with "elites" and more to do with very overt sentiments. There is plenty wrong with the masses, some shadowy "elites" need not be blamed. There are control grids in every society, and there are elites, but they hardly have "plans" beyond normal human ambition, and many of them are probably let by some form of self-righteous do-gooder spirit than by pure evil. Humans are much more complex than that!

Central banking was ill-conceived in hindsight, but at the time it was considered essential to dealing with the business cycle. Hayek and Friedman did alot to disprove the need for a monopolized currency and a central bank as an institution, without having to attribute it to conspiracy theories.. although they might have some validity, you certainly cannot perfectly know the motives of EVERY person in power. Allt hat being said, a single currency is certainly not the most worrying issue of global power consolidation.

You're right that a single currency may not immediately be the most worrying thing by itself, but besides its inevitable mismanagement and the redistribution to the rich (if it's a fiat currency, which it will be), it is also a dangerous means of absolute control: If that single currency is 100% electronic and tied into your RFID chip, you can be made a noncitizen with no rights and no wealth at the whim of the establishment. If you ever step out of line, well...have fun trying to find something to eat.

[zoi]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

Please read the links below, in regards as to what's wrong with the NAU.

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/NAUArticles.html
Treason Abounds ~ Gov't Cabal Plots North American Union (NAU)

The August Review - The North American Union and the Larger Plan


http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/north_american_union/the_north_american_union_and_the_larger_plan_20071 21884/

[Johnny Crab]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/Johnny_Crab/facepalmFXd.jpg

[porcupine]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

America is unique. Nowhere else has a Bill of Rights like ours. I'm not willing to give that up for any reason. The NAU would do that.


Overboard on federalism?? Our government isn't local enough! The answer isn't to make it even less local. A non-local government doesn't respond to the people and it necessarily has to force alot of people to do things they don't want to do. Lots of diverse locally controlled governments are better and that's why we set it up that way.

If you think this country is losing it's liberty, you'll be shocked at what they're doing in Europe. Forced DNA databases, cities that have as many cameras as people, taxes beyond belief.

[Kraig]

The AU is a horrible idea, as it has been in Europe. There will be no increase of wealth with an AU (well unless you're a "key player"), only more people for you to pay welfare taxes to, more people for you to pay to be imprisoned, more people for you to pay to be spied on (including yourself), and above all - a much bigger gap between the politicians who WILL decide how to spend your money and protect you from the risks being free, and that gap will make it that much easier for them to trample on you. If you think some form of union is needed to bring down the barriers of international trade, you might want to ask this obvious question: why can't that be done by simply removing or lowering import/export taxes? This will be nothing more than a glorified beer run at 2:00 am in Texas.

They will promise all sorts of greats things, and wealth will be the greatest of those promises. You might want to ask yourself what type of person would be motived by promises of wealth, because the honest man will already be living by his own means while the hordes of looters in welfare programs will become quite joyful with this promise.

They day we become part of the "AU" will be that last day I am a functioning member of society, I will not allow one minute of my work to contribute to this tyranny. That how strongly I feel about this issue.

[Todd]

I read 1984 and it is scarry... but in theory, 1984 does not require an NAU just because one existed in the book. What's more, an NAU doesn't require Big Brother.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm trying to sort out what I really think.
edit: don't be a turd truth muffin

Brave new world is much more likely....(Pacify everyone with anti depressants, internet porn, Survivor and American Idol)
Even a very liberal friend of mine agrees that this form of totalitarinism is the most plausible.

[Signzit]

Here is a primer to Big Government

enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0&feature=PlayList&p=98E36FE9A70F7F2C&index=0&playnext=1

[boggie08]

The EU is a shadow. As soon as a serious pressure is applied to it, it will collapse.

[123tim]

Thanks. finaly a reason that doesn't involve me being scared for no reason.

cool, and everyone who said I should just know and why even bother asking.... maybe you know everything already, but I don't.

I'm glad that you asked. There's a lot that I don't have sorted out myself.

Here's my reason to oppose it....

Every merger means that there's one less choice of society in the world. Every merger means that there is one less government to do things differently. A NAU merger would combine the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Who would decide the universal law that it would require?
Would we take on a Canadian form of government? A Mexican?

The really scary thing is the next obvious step - A one-world government. This obviously would have one supreme leader. Can you imagine what sort of person this would be? Do you think that he or she would be benevolent? Do you think that we would be free? I think that we would lose everything that we're fighting to keep right now. I think that we would lose more than we could possibly imagine.

[Crickett]

There IS no appreciation of the Canadian dollar....just a tanking of our own. You will lose more liberty and get more regulated than you ever thought possible. PLUS we will all lose our very special country, that was set up to be run differently from all the rest.

[truelies]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

.............................

hmmmmm, the euros earned per worker hour in Europe when compared to the dollars earned per worker hour in the USA really don't buy all that much even in the more prosperous areas- France/Germany/UK

[DriftWood]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

I live in europe and liked the idea of a united europe before i got all libertarian and all. Anyways..

There are some good points to EU and the Euro..
Eu meant that a free internal market was opened. On general the EU has forced the memberstates to make their markets more free. Monopolies, subsidies, and trade barriers have be scrapped. Good stuff. The Euro has also been good because it has reduced currency fluctuations between countries wich help in making trade more predicatble and efficient. Also the central bank that controls the Euro is not as keen in inlation as the central banks that control the sterling and the dollar. The ECB only stated mission is to keep inflation under wraps as opposed to the Fed that supposed to do lots of things it shouldnt. The fed is primarly supposed to keep the economy going (by inflating), and secondarily keep infaltion under wraps (impossible), and be the lender of last resorts (more inflation).. So all this means is that even though the Euro is a soft currency, its harder than eighter the pound or the dollar. The european central bank however is coming under attack increasingly by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy who want more political control over the currency so that they can "manage it" to help the economy (read inflation). So maybe it will change for the worse. To be honest the euro is also loosing value, but not as quick. On a good note, recently many eastern european countries (and ireland) have experimented with low flat taxes and their economies are booming as a result. Also Germany lowered its taxes some years ago and its dead economy woke up again.

Now for the bad. The reason to be against EU is the same reason to be against the USA. When you take power from smaller states/countries and concentrate it into a central govt you put all your eggs in one basket. If you get a good govt that is for low taxes, stable currencie and none intervention in foreign affairs then you are lucky. However if you get a socialist leaning govt then your screwed.

One thing the Europe had going for it before EU got so much power was that European countries could never decide on a common foreign policy. That meant that europe on a whole could never really do much damage on the global scene. Now with the constitution EU will get a foreign minister and president and common military. This means EU will be able to speak with one voice and start throwing its weight around and getting involved in other countries business. Just like USA.

So I think the people that want EU to split up, should also want the US to split up. Big is bad, local govt is good, mmkay. I imagine that there would be no war with iraq if there had not been a central govt in US. Imagine that all the states would had had to agree before going to war. It would not have happened. Well, there would have not been any common military to begin with so individual states would have had to fight iraq on their own. It would not have happened. Small is good because youll have to show more respect for others that way.

So on the whole EU is worse than US when it comes to taxes and but better when it comes to stable currency and foreign policy. When it comes to democracy its a harder to tell, I'm not sure wich is worse. Then again what is democracy other than mob rule and viloation of the rights of minorities.

Cheers

[revolutionman]

In America we are our own masters, freedom and liberty are our prized posessions. We had genuine freedom and independance for 140 or so years. Its a reality that can work, and we know that from first hand experience. We had a real republic for a little while there before the faux government was installed, Most european nations went from monarchy to faux government, with some totalitarians and fascists thrown into the mix. They are comfortable being completely dominated. Thats a thick skin that takes 1000+ years to develop. We're like 700 years shy of that mark.

[boggie08]

The EU is anything but fine. If you think it is fine, just watch this documentary. It is the EU from a British perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs&NR=1

[Fox McCloud]

I think the real problem will come for the EU, when the USA's economy (or the whole country in general) implodes. The EU will likely be the country to fill the recently created void....most likely it'll do this militarily and economically. When we get crippled, so will our currency...and no one will want to use the dollar anymore...thus we will not longer be the world's reserve currency...it's very likely that the Euro will fill this particularly vacuum.

And then the cycle will start all over again; most likely the EU will print more money that is necessary to cover investments, create bubbles, make new programs, etc....and it'll export these excess Euro's to other countries, keeping it's currency, at home, sound, but screwing over everyone else.

I just have a feeling Europe will demolish their currency much faster than we will, and a global currency will be pushed on all of us after that.....though I could be wrong.

[jack555]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?

The problem is the people behind it are the same people trying to take away our rights. Yes theoretically a worldwide democracy would be nice but its not going to happen. And the EU has lots of problems. Somebody got arrested I think yesterday for holding a sign that said scientology is a cult. They don't have (worthwhile) rights over there. Theres so many stories like this its not even funny.

[Max Stirner]

One of the related questions that comes up with this for me is, what precisely is Dr. Paul's problem with super-national trade and governance organizations? Specifically economic blocks like the EU, if the Senate ratified a NAFTA/EU style trade group as the Constitution requires, would it be ok?

[jack555]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?



Easiest Answer: The EU is not doing great. The people there do not have freedom of speech and thats just ONE problem.


If a NAU is created we will eventually lose our sovereignty. How do I know? The same people behind the NAU (ex: The Council On Forein Relations) wants to take away American sovereignty. This is common knowledge backed up by books etc (for starters try I think his name is dr. carol quiggly, someone might correct the spelling).

The people who want world government also want a population of 5 million and many want a few to be in charge with the people more or less as slaves. Where the people serve the government. Just look at the undemocratic United Nations.

[jack555]

I'm sold on that argument.

What do you think of this:

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

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

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

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

Theres nothing wrong with that but many would not accept the invitation and we ourselves can't even follow our own constitution let alone others.


What we need is a new united states government with a revised constitution etc which eliminates the b.s. we have now.

For example, we need to make the second amendment more without a doubt understandable so that no liberal/communist judge can pretend it means something else.

We need to pass something that says there can be no b.s. of having 2 bills in one. For example a bill with food for starving babies and a bill to fund devil worshipping. People will pass the bill to help the babies. This is idiotic and it happens all the time (not the literal example but u get the idea).

These are just 2 examples. The founding fathers did not know everything and we need to take what they did and improve upon it. We need a New America that gets rid of these problems and has learned from it's past.

[Paulitician]

Actually, I believe both Italy and Spain want to withdraw from the EU. I also hear that the euro can come under a lot of pressure over the coming years, but obviously I'm no expert on the matter.

I wouldn't be totally against an NAU or even a world government with a global currency which would be backed by gold (if by world government we mean that all the goverments in the world are Constitutional Republics similar to what our founders wanted--obviously I don't want a central world government), it's just that certain leaders are doing it underhandedly by not getting the consent of the governed. I'm also against it because these leaders want to set up this system in order to favor certain corporations at the expense of everyone else. No one should get special treatment, especially not a corporation which shouldn't even be a "person" to begin with.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Easiest Answer: The EU is not doing great. The people there do not have freedom of speech and thats just ONE problem.

Are you referring to hate speech legislation? The constituent countries of the EU had hate speech laws before accession so I don't see how you can blame it on the EU.


If a NAU is created we will eventually lose our sovereignty. How do I know? The same people behind the NAU (ex: The Council On Forein Relations) wants to take away American sovereignty. This is common knowledge backed up by books etc (for starters try I think his name is dr. carol quiggly, someone might correct the spelling).

Now you're getting into conspiracy theory territory.


The people who want world government also want a population of 5 million and many want a few to be in charge with the people more or less as slaves. Where the people serve the government. Just look at the undemocratic United Nations.

That's ridiculous. The people who wish for world government are very diverse.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

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

Ask bernanke and you would probably get this answer.....

http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=HeWEq4aq-ZkJ&imgurl=www.timescall.com/assets/newspics/022808b1a.jpg

The economy is doing fine, what's so bad about the Federal Reserve? :rolleyes:

But the EU is doing fine. The American economy is not.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

its all moving towards 1 union. thats why!

EU. NAU. AU( Asian Union) then, Global Union.

get it?

First you must back this up with fact
Then you must tell us why this is a bad thing

[Alex Libman]

EU is experiencing economic growth because of Eastern Europe de-FUBAR-ing itself from Communism, with most of its young people doing so by finding jobs in the west. They are also getting a lot of bright minds from India and other former colonies, and their growth will continue for a while as they add Turkey and Ukraine. And they are doing a few things right, like lower corporate taxes than U.S. or Japan. But everything is relative, and the EU is less than the sum of its parts. The richest countries in Europe (Switzerland, Ireland, Norway), became that way through capitalism, but EU is pushing in the opposite direction. Overwhelming tax burden, laziness-is-justified attitude, and shrinking native population will catch up to them in a few decades.

I'm not opposed to NAU in of itself, but I do see it as something that will push the U.S. closed toward socialism. We do need mutual border security with Canada and especially Mexico, but why should a plumber from Mexico have an advantage for entering our country than a Ph.D. from India? Immigration has to be competitive, otherwise an uncontrollable torrent of socialists with little respect for private property would flood the country. As far as free trade in goods and services - the only thing the government needs to do to that end is get out of the way.

[Paulitician]

Now you're getting into conspiracy theory territory.
The fact that the American people do not get to vote on NAU legislation that would impact them is not a loss of sovereignty? The fact that leaders deliberately have a loose border policy, when the overwhelming public are against, is not a loss of sovereignty? The fact that people's property is being taken by eminent domain is not a loss of their individual sovereignty and the sovereignty of their country because it's being used to form a borderless community? I think there are obvious and serious implications for sovereignty here--not only because of what some think tank has written but most importantly because of action. It is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Communities like the EU and USAN are reality and the wave of the future. Unless of course the public stop it, but how could they when they're not given a choice, i.e. they're not sovereign?

[Minestra di pomodoro]

The fact that the American people do not get to vote on NAU legislation that would impact them is not a loss of sovereignty?

What "NAU legislation"? There is no NAU legislative body.


The fact that leaders deliberately have a loose border policy, when the overwhelming public are against,

People only feel this way because of the economic downturn. They feel that immigrants are taking their jobs. Just recently, we've seen this turn to murder in South Africa. When the government tried to do something about it in 2006, massive protests ensued. It isn't really that simple.


is not a loss of sovereignty?

No, it isn't. Not if we had 1 million more immigrants.


The fact that people's property is being taken by eminent domain is not a loss of their individual sovereignty and the sovereignty of their country because it's being used to form a borderless community?

It's not a fact, it's conspiracy theory.


I think there are obvious and serious implications for sovereignty here--not only because of what some think tank has written but most importantly because of action. It is not a conspiracy theory anymore.

Sorry, still is!


Communities like the EU and USAN are reality and the wave of the future.

I agree with you there! I don't think it will even be that bad either. It would be like the United States, only the United States would be a state within a bigger union of states.


Unless of course the public stop it, but how could they when they're not given a choice, i.e. they're not sovereign?

The people are sovereign, silly.

[Mattsa]

Seriously, I was just thinking about how the EU and the Euro are doing great. What's the big deal?

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

Are we going overboard on Federalism?


As a citizen of Europe.......well almost.....cos I'm British......I can assure you that all is not rosy in the EU.

Basic rights like innocence before proven guilty do not exist in the EU constitution.

It is 'Back door' totalitarianism, a Trojan Horse. DON'T be fooled

Resist any moves towards NAU. It will end America...PERIOD

There's a problem....A BIG problem

America is bankrupt. So is the UK. So is most of the developed world. The only solution being forwarded is a socialist solution, the abandonment of nation states and moves towards supra-nationalism, NAU, EU etc.

It must be resisted.....but I fear it CANNOT be resisted

The debt created by the central banking system is an artificial construct. They create debt by creating credit under the fractional reserve system, by printing paper money.

We've funded the greatest period of economic growth and false prosperity in history by printing money into existence. The bill for our profligacy and waste will be borne by our children and future generations but in our world of finite resources and exponential population growth, the bills cannot be repaid. The party is over and our children are facing destitution.

The New World Order is the response of the ruling class to a system that is collapsing around all around them. They will rule by fear and by enslaving us to curtail our ability to function as independent nation states and as free people.

We are victims of our own success. Our rapid development, our quest for new technologies could not be paid for with our existing output. I think the state of humatity is not so much the consequence of evil or conspiracy, just our inability to create systems of governance and financial control that would keep up with the speed of our development. The gold standard would have provided us with a more stable monetary system but it would have straightjacketed our progress. This is why it was rejected. Personally, I would have opted for gold as money any day, even if it had slowed human development by decades.

Now the ruling class know the bills for our profligacy cannot be repaid, we are sliding into decadence and corruption. They are losing control and authortarianism and statism are the consequence.

Difficult to know where to go from here.

Ron Paul is my hero but I do seriously wonder if Libertarianism can exist in this world. I would like to think that free markets and freedom would provide answers to the challanges ahead, but somehow I fear that fascism, fear and war are the most likely responses we can expect in the near future.

Looking forward, good will always prevail over evil. Socialism is the preminent force in global politics because it is the politics of fear and control. The good times will come back, freedom and liberty will return, but tyranny and evil are here to stay for a while.

Be prepared! That is all I can say......

Apart from....Ron paul is my hero...the greatest American for a very long time.

[jack555]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack555
Easiest Answer: The EU is not doing great. The people there do not have freedom of speech and thats just ONE problem.

Are you referring to hate speech legislation? The constituent countries of the EU had hate speech laws before accession so I don't see how you can blame it on the EU.



I was wrong in assuming that they had free speech beforehand. However the EU still does not provide free speech for its people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack555
If a NAU is created we will eventually lose our sovereignty. How do I know? The same people behind the NAU (ex: The Council On Forein Relations) wants to take away American sovereignty. This is common knowledge backed up by books etc (for starters try I think his name is dr. carol quiggly, someone might correct the spelling).

Now you're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

Its not conspiracy theory. There are books and lots of material on it. Like I said it is common knowledge that people in the CFR (some, possibly not all) want a North American Community. This is fact...they have published articles and books about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jack555
The people who want world government also want a population of 5 million and many want a few to be in charge with the people more or less as slaves. Where the people serve the government. Just look at the undemocratic United Nations.

That's ridiculous. The people who wish for world government are very diverse.


While its true the people who want one world government are diverse, many with wealth and power wish for this. The idea of a small world population is admired by many globalists.

[Fox McCloud]

Ron Paul has a few beliefs that could be classified as "conspiracy theories", but for the most part, he thinks things out very well...if he think there's an NAU on the way and that it'll be bad, I wouldn't doubt it; he's been around a lot longer than the vast majority of us have, and he's seen more than most of us have.

Besides, just think of things logically; we have the EU, the AU (African Union), and the SAU (South American Union) was formed just a few weeks ago; there's really only 2-3 more regions that can be unionized before there are little if any sovereign nations left.

I think this desire for global governance is, at best, unhealthy...there's just way too much power concentrated at a very very high level...even if it starts off with noble desires, it could very easy be bent otherwise....after all, we were a Federal Republic for about 80-some years, then Lincoln destroyed that...sure, the States still have a lot of power, but I'd say its become far more of a unitary now.

besides, when you have 1 currency and 1 central bank, what is the likelihood it'll be back by gold? The IMF currently forbids its members from having a currency tied, in any way to gold...why would it be different after we have an International Union?

Once there is only 1 currency...and it's fiat, then you're truly screwed, as there's no safe haven to go to (especially with legal tender laws).

[jon_perez]

Just being devil's advocate here... (hope you guys understand what that means before rushing to flame me)

The United States did pretty well, why shouldn't a North American Union?