Why not an American Union?

[Michelangelo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fr33]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to all of what your asking is: None of this is as valuable as having Chinese workers willing to build everything while we sit on our asses and cubicles.


I love how you scoff at sovereignty, as if it's something that is happening. That's cute.

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...31.00uADYhRP_A

[otherone]

I am asking why someone should be against the political unification of the American continent

In other news...should rapists be given viagra?

[Ronin Truth]

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/00...ower-elite.htm

[Lucille]

Because "whenever something is wrong, something is too big." And "small is beautiful, but it is also efficient."

I want to bust this bigass bitch up, and you clowns want to make it even bigger? Talk about dupes, tools, and gluttons for punishment!

[acptulsa]

Does everyone in the Americas have the same sort of benefits? Does everyone pay the same in taxes? Can Belize and Nigeria afford to meet the unfunded mandates the federal government forces states, counties and municipalities into? Do they want to pay that much for that garbage? Would they rather feed people instead? Do they want to be responsible for our incredibly irresponsible debt? Do they want our federal regulations that make it a crime to cook food in an non-certified kitchen for your neighbors, and all kinds of other silly crap? Considering the federal government is doing one hell of a piss poor job of micromanaging the whole country at the moment, don't you think some preparation--by way, perhaps, of scaling back federal overreach--might be advisable before the idiots in Washington take on places they can't even find on a map?

Does everyone even speak the same language? Don't you think that might be helpful? Do we all want to speak the same language?

[Occam's Banana]

smaller > bigger ...

[Southron]

We have people that already want to add Puerto Rico as the 51st state. It seems like we are accepting an unlimited number of people from those areas you mentioned.

We are moving in the direction you want, albeit slowly.

[Michelangelo]

The answer to all of what your asking is: None of this is as valuable as having Chinese workers willing to build everything while we sit on our asses and cubicles.


I love how you scoff at sovereignty, as if it's something that is happening. That's cute.

As wages in China (PRC) increase it is becoming cheaper to use labor from Latin America, especially when transportation costs are accounted for.

Because "whenever something is wrong, something is too big." And "small is beautiful, but it is also efficient."

I want to bust this bigass bitch up, and you clowns want to make it even bigger? Talk about dupes, tools, and gluttons for punishment!

There is a difference between physical enlargement and enlarging the central government's power. The two are not correlated.

For example, France is smaller than the US and has a far more centralized government. Spain, similar in size to France, meanwhile is much more decentralized.

Denmark and Switzerland are both of the same size relatively. The latter is a radical example of decentralization, the former not so much.

There is good reason to believe that increasing the United States to include its neighbors might roll back the scope of the federal government. The federal government should ideally only deal with national defense and ensuring free trade among the states. Welfare programs and other fiscal redistribution schemes would quickly lose popularity if 'others' had access to them. How many democrats would support Obamacare if they had to pay to provide those benefits to Argentinians? There is value in homogeneity, but there is also value in heterogeneity.

You want a society that has enough common values to reduce transaction costs, but also diverse enough that competing groups keep the size of the federal government small enough to avoid it being used against themselves.

Does everyone in the Americas have the same sort of benefits? Does everyone pay the same in taxes? Can Belize and Nigeria afford to meet the unfunded mandates the federal government forces states, counties and municipalities into? Do they want to pay that much for that garbage? Would they rather feed people instead? Do they want to be responsible for our incredibly irresponsible debt? Do they want our federal regulations that make it a crime to cook food in an non-certified kitchen for your neighbors, and all kinds of other silly crap? Considering the federal government is doing one hell of a piss poor job of micromanaging the whole country at the moment, don't you think some preparation--by way, perhaps, of scaling back federal overreach--might be advisable before the idiots in Washington take on places they can't even find on a map?

Does everyone even speak the same language? Don't you think that might be helpful? Do we all want to speak the same language?

Nigeria isn't part of the American continent?

Is is not clear that speaking the same language is desirable. Is there a benefit to a lingua franca? Yes, and that is why English is currently the world language. French, Greek, and Latin have all had their time periods as the lingua franca of the western world. The existence of a lingua franca does not however preclude allowing regional languages. Also, even if having the same language was desirable, it is unclear why we should not try to integrate with the rest of Anglo-America (i.e. the Bahamas, Canada, the rest of the British Caribbean etc.)

The United States federal government is awful. However in relative terms it does a good job. There is a reason why the United States is a magnet for migrants around the world after all. I suspect many nations would prefer to be part of the US if it gave them access to better economic institutions. Is there a cost to joining the US? Yes, but it would also presumably come with in exchange for better institutions than the ones these countries currently have.

Also see my above note; if new states joined the US we might very well see the cost of joining the federation lowered as federal welfare programs were repealed and/or rolled back. The enlargement of the United States might very well lead to it adopting more libertarian-oriented policies if it causes groups to grow distrustworthy of one another in the political arena.

smaller > bigger ...

See my above post about the difference between physical and jurisdiction size.

We have people that already want to add Puerto Rico as the 51st state. It seems like we are accepting an unlimited number of people from those areas you mentioned.

We are moving in the direction you want, albeit slowly.

Not quickly enough!

[pcosmar]

What about the Constitution (the Law of the Land)

Will those other countries adopt our Constitution. Or will it be thrown out.

What about the 2nd amendment? Will this "union" allow for armed citizenry?

or do we throw that out?

[pcosmar]

Not quickly enough!

Why do you support socialism? (it is failure everywhere)

[Ronin Truth]

Four layers of government not enough for you? SHEESH!

[jmdrake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Were you sleeping through the Eurozone financial crisis? Note that it's not over. http://www.economist.com/news/financ...e-back-reality Why would you want to replicate that disaster in the western hemisphere? And even then, regional economic differences between north and south led to a civil war. I'm glad we weren't linked to Mexico when they had their peso crisis or Argentina when they had their peso crisis. Only someone insane would actually want that. Now as far as people being free to travel across borders, we had that prior to World War I. It's security concerns which have grown from our own decadent internationalism which initially caused border crossing to be restricted and not nativism. When Britain inhumanely blockaded Germany, causing Germany to respond with unrestricted submarine warfare, we should have told both nations "We will only trade in our own hemisphere until you sort this crap out."

And as far as the United States, that was a group of states with a common language and culture and ruled by a single entity (Great Britain) and it made perfect sense for those states to come together. Even then, regional economic differences ultimately led to the U.S. Civil War.

Meanwhile the Spanish speaking countries can't even come together on their own. Why should we come together with them?

[otherone]

There is a difference between physical enlargement and enlarging the central government's power. The two are not correlated.

For example, France is smaller than the US and has a far more centralized government. Spain, similar in size to France, meanwhile is much more decentralized.

Denmark and Switzerland are both of the same size relatively. The latter is a radical example of decentralization, the former not so much.

It would be more apt to compare the US with empires, not countries.
IRT size, I doubt those Zeroes would have made it all the way to California.
Expansion means even more war.

[Occam's Banana]

smaller > bigger ...

See my above post about the difference between physical and jurisdiction size.

It makes no difference: "smaller > bigger" in either case, geographically or jurisdictionally.

Or to put it another way, "disunion > union" ...

[Michelangelo]

What about the Constitution (the Law of the Land)

Will those other countries adopt our Constitution. Or will it be thrown out.

What about the 2nd amendment? Will this "union" allow for armed citizenry?

or do we throw that out?

If American integration is done by allowing new states to join, no it wouldn't be thrown out. The bill of rights would remain as is.

Why do you support socialism? (it is failure everywhere)

Four layers of government not enough for you? SHEESH!

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

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

Were you sleeping through the Eurozone financial crisis? Note that it's not over. http://www.economist.com/news/financ...e-back-reality Why would you want to replicate that disaster in the western hemisphere? And even then, regional economic differences between north and south led to a civil war. I'm glad we weren't linked to Mexico when they had their peso crisis or Argentina when they had their peso crisis. Only someone insane would actually want that. Now as far as people being free to travel across borders, we had that prior to World War I. It's security concerns which have grown from our own decadent internationalism which initially caused border crossing to be restricted and not nativism. When Britain inhumanely blockaded Germany, causing Germany to respond with unrestricted submarine warfare, we should have told both nations "We will only trade in our own hemisphere until you sort this crap out."

And as far as the United States, that was a group of states with a common language and culture and ruled by a single entity (Great Britain) and it made perfect sense for those states to come together. Even then, regional economic differences ultimately led to the U.S. Civil War.

Meanwhile the Spanish speaking countries can't even come together on their own. Why should we come together with them?

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

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

Jesus Huerta de Soto makes a similar argument in defense of the euro. There are flaws with the euro, but it has been good in so far that it has reduced inflation in countries like Spain which would not otherwise willingly adopt (relatively) tight money policies preferred by the German-dominated European Central Bank.

In review:

(1) De-Nationalized/Private Currency > (2) US Dollar > (3) Other National Currencies

The (1) first isn't an option for the time being. Therefore (2) is the best choice. If (1) becomes a choice we should of course take it!

As for why the rest of Latin America hasn't come together, it actually has made several strides towards lowering trade barriers (in goods and people) in recent years. It seems however that a long lasting federation needs a strong party inside the federation that the other members can agree to concede a leadership role to. Brazil is possibly the only country down there that is large enough to take up such a role, but Spanish America is not willing to concede such a role to it. You can see this play out whenever someone proposes Brazil be given a UN security council seat. The United States is the only country that is both large enough and able to command the necessary respect from the rest of the American countries.

And once more, even if integration with Latin America is not feasible, why not attempt to integrate with the rest of Anglo-America? Canada, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Belize, etc?

It would be more apt to compare the US with empires, not countries.
IRT size, I doubt those Zeroes would have made it all the way to California.
Expansion means even more war.

Very well. Are 'smaller', in the geographical sense, empires better than larger ones?

Would you prefer to live in the United States or the German Empire (the Prussian led one in the 19th-20th century)? The former is more decentralized despite being larger in size and population.

It makes no difference: "smaller > bigger" in either case, geographically or jurisdictionally.

Or to put it another way, "disunion > union" ...

Do you concede at least that there is a cost to being small independent polity?

__________________________________________________ __________________-


Just so we're clear, American integration need not mean a larger federal government in term of scope. Consider the Hanseatic League. The league allowed the individual cities a great degree of autonomy when it came to domestic affairs, but bound them to a common defense pact and promoted free trade among them.

A physically larger United States might paradoxically encourage its federal government to shrink in size in terms of jurisdiction. All parties can agree to the benefit of trade and a common defense, but they would be less willing to agree to welfare programs or other redistribution schemes. The fact that several American countries could not adopt the welfare system of the US is an argument for, not against, greater integration. By necessity the federation would have to be reformed so that only trade, defense, and a few other duties would be dealt with by the federal government.

One of the problems with the EU I think is that it seems to think that countries should reach a certain threshold before being allowed to join. To the contrary, you want to increase diversity in order to induce reform in federal politics. There is of course a downside of too much diversity. This is why I am not proposing that we go and ask Pakistan or India too join. Why not however consider inviting a nation like Jamaica though?

It is English speaking. Has a common law system. Its descended from the British Empire. Geographically it is closer to the mainland than Hawaii or some of the more far flung parts of the union. Indeed, is it not strange that Hawaii is a state but Anglo-American Caribbean countries like the Bahamas or Jamaica aren't? Let us remember that several American founders were born in the Anglo-Caribbean and our early economy was strongly tied to those curious islands.

[Ronin Truth]

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

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

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

[donnay]

What about the Constitution (the Law of the Land)

Will those other countries adopt our Constitution. Or will it be thrown out.

What about the 2nd amendment? Will this "union" allow for armed citizenry?

or do we throw that out?

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

[Occam's Banana]

Do you concede at least that there is a cost to being small independent polity?

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

[TheTexan]

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

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

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

[otherone]

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

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

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

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

[Occam's Banana]

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

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

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

[presence]

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

World Bank
United Nations

[]

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

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


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

SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS COMMITTEES: AN OVERVIEW

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

to international military action.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


$#@! that.


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

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


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

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

KORUS FTA

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

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


Panama TPA

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


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

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

BINDING arbitration against the state


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

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


Columbia TPA

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


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


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


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

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

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



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

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

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

which enable commercial entities
to initiate international arbitration

if provisions for freedom to invest are not respected.


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

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


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

[]

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





THAT my friends is what this is all about.


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



ISDS
Revolution is Action upon Revelation!

Originally Posted by idiom

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

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



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

Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative

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

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

Similarly...

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








So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty

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

So-Called Free Trade Costs Sovereignty

by JBS President John F. McManus



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

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

“world government” and a loss of sovereignty.


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


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


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

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

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


[]


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

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

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

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

Posted on August 31, 2010 by CTC



For Immediate Release

Tuesday, August 31, 2010


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

The Korea Free Trade Agreement Poses Serious Threat to State Sovereignty



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


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


investor-to-state enforcement mechanisms


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

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

‘Free’ Trade and the Sovereignty Squeeze

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

By Ji Xianbai
October 28, 2014




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


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

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

[jmdrake]

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

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

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

[staerker]

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

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

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

[Michelangelo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[otherone]

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

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

[jmdrake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michelangelo]

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

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

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

Who said I'm pushing for more government?

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

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

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

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

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