Union of the Americas. Could it work?

[Gallia-]

Which will not happen for many, many years.

When everyone south of USA is as red as it is on this map (and slightly green on the second), you can consider an American Union. That would depend on wealth inequality present, but since it's America I imagine that the average person in Rich!Mexico will be living not terribly different from today, while the Gini coefficient approaches 0.8 or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... P_(nominal)_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_(nominal)_2015.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coef ... d_Bank.svg

Unfortunately, the USA is slipping more towards the corruption and inequalities present in the systems and institutions of its less than fortunate Southern neighbours. Thankfully this means that if the USA becomes as corrupt and broken as, say, Brazil or Mexico, then it could be advised to enter into a dysfunctional union with them. No worse harm than what would already be occurring internally, unlike a hypothetical "American Union" today.

The only thing such supranational cosmopolitanism promises is an increase in the sovereignty and importance of local politics. Cities and sub-national entities will increasingly take on roles that national and supra-national bodies are incapable of handling. The ability to provide for national and global public goods decreases, and perhaps with it the rights of citizens decrease according to their net worth. I suppose that's why libertarians support open borders or whatever (presumably at some point you are allowed to literally murder poor people if you are rich enough), but that's a bit bad because I like having functional police forces, public education, rail and road transportation, and armed forces.

I'm not sure why some liberals (the OP) and some rightists (white nationalists) have taken up the cause of cosmopolitanism though, since mixing huge numbers of disparate and competing political factions/ethnic groups only leads to gridlock and inability to reach consensus, as can be seen from the European Union currently staggering along, the US Congress not working for the past thirty-odd years, and any sort of hypothetical political union that tries to pretend that nations and nationalism do not exist or are meaningless. It's hard enough making a single country work together, why talk about trying to make a continent work together.

Because the whole planet must become American property. Obviously.

What are you talking about?

[The Emerald Legion]

Because the whole planet must become American property. Obviously.

What are you talking about?

America. America rose to prosperity by refusing to provide basic services, letting anyone join. And then letting everyone slug it out until only the strongest survived. Creating a vicious, pragmatic attitude that to some degree still persists today. For now at least.

[Gallia-]

What are you talking about?

America. America rose to prosperity by refusing to provide basic services, letting anyone join. And then letting everyone slug it out until only the strongest survived. Creating a vicious, pragmatic attitude that to some degree still persists today. For now at least.

This is called the "Frontier Thesis". It's also called "19th century psuedohistorical nonsense".

More to the point, what does this have to do with the thread? Nothing at all.

[The Sauganash Union]

No.

The cultural differences between those of Spanish and Anglo descent are pretty much equal, not including Brazil's Portuguese-esque culture. It would not work

This will be a significant shock to the large majority of people who are not Anglo-Americans.

It is common for Hispanic Americans to call European Americans who are not Hispanic and speak English Anglos.

[The Sauganash Union]

What's with this anti-Calvinist bigotry?

Because it's apostasy. It turns the source of all love into a cruel psychopath.

No. Roman Catholicism is medieval and tyrannical. Calvinism is Enlightened. You call us psychopaths, but to us, you're neo-feudal backwaters.

[Gallia-]

This will be a significant shock to the large majority of people who are not Anglo-Americans.

It is common for Hispanic Americans to call European Americans who are not Hispanic and speak English Anglos.

There are substantial subconscious differences between the way Hispanic and European Americans view the world, too.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/lpsc_ ... lliott.pdf

Space: Latino’s interpersonal distance tends to be somewhat less than that of European Americans (ER’s). The typical 2-3 foot "arm’s length" spacing preferred by European Americans is experienced by many Hispanics as cold, unfriendly, or a way for the ER to show superiority. Since both people’s expectations for "normal" social distances are often unconscious, one can witness the phenomena of the ER being backed across the room by a Hispanic person, as each tries to conduct the conversation in a way that feels right for them. This may be amusing to witness but is very uncomfortable for both participants (Bennett, 1996).

Time: Latinos tend to operate in a polychronic fashion—that is, many activities may be going on at once, and priority is given to the immediate needs of people, especially those involved in one’s collateral network. Time is a fluid and malleable concept (Condon, 1997).

The biggest difference is linear vs. non-linear time, which is problematic for the USA, since the most successful developed economies are monochronic rather than polychronic. It's not really clear to what extent linguistic background affects time perception and chronemics, but Germanic language states tend to be monochronic, so there's some correlation.

These are just within the various American ethnic groups, of course. The gap in cultural worldview is even larger between South/Central America and Mexico, and the United States and Canada. They might as well be entirely different worlds, like the Soviet Union and Western Europe were. There is also a not particularly surprising correlation between polychronic cultures and poverty.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Because it's apostasy. It turns the source of all love into a cruel psychopath.

No. Roman Catholicism is medieval and tyrannical. Calvinism is Enlightened. You call us psychopaths, but to us, you're neo-feudal backwaters.

I never said you were psychopaths. I said your model of God falsely paints Him as one. Also, assuming the so-called Enlightenment was a good thing. Please work on both reading comprehension and not putting words in others' mouths.

[Chestaan]

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice I worry that such a union would just lead to the US having even greater power and influence in a world where it already has too much say in world affairs.

I say it doesn't have enough. For instance, Chile is not yet a territory of the USA.

Don't worry, I'm sure you guys will have no problem installing another dictator who likes to have his pet dogs rape his prisoners.

[Sovaal]

So, I just want to ask, has Keshi participated in the thread at all?

[Nationalist Gold Union]

Too big of a cultural difference. The US and Canada (and Suriname/Guiana) speak non-latin languages, and the rest of the Americas speak Spanish/Portuguese/French. Also the development gap between the US and, say, Paraguay is much larger than the development gap between Germany and Romania (for example, in comparison to the EU).

On paper, an AU would be an interesting concept but it's obvious to see that it would basically be the US presiding over everyone else economically. A more interesting union would be the Anglosphere, to be honest.

[Gig em Aggies]

So, I just want to ask, has Keshi participated in the thread at all?

Probably early own but Keshi could be in the corner holding a stuffed animal after we ruined his last thread

[Great Karoo]

No, but I am in support of a sort of union in North America similar to the EU or the African Union, although I don't think it could happen with the current North American political climate. Having it be both Americas would be a bit too much for me. I would also support a Schengen-style free movement agreement between Canada/US/Mexico, but once again, basically no chance with the current North American political climate. MAYBE between Canada/US only.

[Greater Miami Shores]

All the countries of North Central and South America join in a union stronger than the EU.
How To Join- There are 2 ways that a country would be able to join the Union. a) A referendum vote that gets more then 50% yes to join or B) A bill is passed entering said country into the Union.

Government- The government would consist of 4 chambers
1. The parliament. 1000 members appointed by parties that were elected by continent-wide vote Parties getting members in the chamber based by percentage of the vote got.
2. The house of ambassadors. 36 people elected by popular vote per country.
3. The Priministership. One person voted to be the prime minister by the parliament.
4. The Judiciary 37 judges 1 appointed by each ambassador and 1 appointed by the prime minister

Power- The continental government would have the power to override national laws. They would have a peacekeeping military/police unit of about 1% of the population 10 million to enforce and keep the peace within the borders. They would have the power to coin money that would be used by the whole union. They would have the power to pardon convicts who violated national laws but not continental laws. They would control trade between the member nations. They could impose a tax.

Citizenship- Everyone born in the Americas or who gained citizenship in any country would now be a citizen of every country in the Americas and be allowed to travel freely between the borders.

Offical languages- All official documents would be in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. The metric system would be the official measurement system.

Would you want your country to join and do you think it would actually work.

It sounds like a liberals open borders dream come true. Hell no. I do support the European Union as a Union of European Nations. The union of Hispanic nations, similar to the EU. We already have Mercosur, the Organization of American States, the Central American Parlatino, the Cuban Commie, Venezuelan, Ecuador, and Bolivian Commie dominated ALBA. And an Independent Puerto Rico, as part of the Union of Hispanic Nations.

[Rio Cana]

Snip....

It sounds like a liberals open borders dream come true. Hell no. I do support the European Union as a Union of European Nations. The union of Hispanic nations, similar to the EU. We already have Mercosur, the Organization of American States, the Central American Parlatino, the Cuban Commie, Venezuelan, Ecuador, and Bolivian Commie dominated ALBA. And an Independent Puerto Rico, as part of the Union of Hispanic Nations.

Bolivia is not Commie. In the last 35 years, Bolivia has managed to develop a true democratic system. This in turn has brought stability and a rising economy. Before that it was mostly coups followed by more coups. Most governments were military dictatorships. Inflation and so on . Morales might be left-leaning but he became Pres. via democratic elections. Yes, he tried to change the constitution in order to run for a fourth term (twice should have been suficient) but he lost the referendum which proves Bolivia's democracy works.

Read this on Bolivia's referendum of last year - http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 276751.ece

This on Bolivias rising economy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGQZpdv3eg

[Bearstin]

As an American, this would never pass in congress as national sovereignty is a treasured value

[Greater Miami Shores]

Snip....

It sounds like a liberals open borders dream come true. Hell no. I do support the European Union as a Union of European Nations. The union of Hispanic nations, similar to the EU. We already have Mercosur, the Organization of American States, the Central American Parlatino, the Cuban Commie, Venezuelan, Ecuador, and Bolivian Commie dominated ALBA. And an Independent Puerto Rico, as part of the Union of Hispanic Nations.

Bolivia is not Commie. In the last 35 years, Bolivia has managed to develop a true democratic system. This in turn has brought stability and a rising economy. Before that it was mostly coups followed by more coups. Most governments were military dictatorships. Inflation and so on . Morales might be left-leaning but he became Pres. via democratic elections. Yes, he tried to change the constitution in order to run for a fourth term (twice should have been suficient) but he lost the referendum which proves Bolivia's democracy works.

Read this on Bolivia's referendum of last year - http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 276751.ece

This on Bolivias rising economy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGQZpdv3eg

The video made me sick, but oh well. Bolivia aint Commie, but its' socialist, leftist President is commie. Let's hope he steps down at the end of his term. Let's hope their aint a fixed successor. Which I don't see any, just saying. ALBA is dominated by the leftist, socialist commies, or whatever one calls them, Raúl, Maduro, Correa, and Evo. Yes I read on Wikipedia about how great the economy has been under Correa. How he helped the poor. That his party won 61 % of the constitutional assembly seats. About the recent election in Ecuador, where Correa's backed candidate Lenín Moreno, won the Presidency in the second round elections, 51 % to 49 %. Promises to push forward the so called Citizens revolution, lol. Lenín Moreno, lol what a name.

[Macronmania]

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

[Greater Miami Shores]

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Too me personally, it sounds more like a nightmare.

[Macronmania]

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Too me personally, it sounds more like a nightmare.

Why so? Would greatly improve the welfare of millions of people, and it's hard to construe the green energy bit as anything but a positive. I certainly do not think it sounds nightmare-ish.

[Eol Sha]

Government- The government would consist of 4 chambers
1. The parliament. 1000 members appointed by parties that were elected by continent-wide vote Parties getting members in the chamber based by percentage of the vote got.
2. The house of ambassadors. 36 people elected by popular vote per country.
3. The Priministership. One person voted to be the prime minister by the parliament.
4. The Judiciary 37 judges 1 appointed by each ambassador and 1 appointed by the prime minister

1. As a matter of representation, 1000 members of parliaments (on a side note, fuck parliaments) wouldn't be nearly enough to adequately represent the American peoples. The US Congress is already one of the more unrepresentative legislative bodies in the world. This would be worse.

2. I don't see the value in having a second legislative chamber.

3. Absolutely not. Assumedly, this Union is actually a confederation of states rather than a federation or, God forbid, a unitary state. If that is so then no one should have more power than the leaders of the respective member countries.

4. Absolutely not.

How To Join- There are 2 ways that a country would be able to join the Union. a) A referendum vote that gets more then 50% yes to join or B) A bill is passed entering said country into the Union.

Option B is just unacceptable. Joining such a transformative organization as what you're proposing should only be possible by majority vote. Preferably with a turnout minimum of two-thirds of the voting population or higher so as to ensure some type of popular mandate.

Power- The continental government would have the power to override national laws. They would have a peacekeeping military/police unit of about 1% of the population 10 million to enforce and keep the peace within the borders. They would have the power to coin money that would be used by the whole union. They would have the power to pardon convicts who violated national laws but not continental laws. They would control trade between the member nations. They could impose a tax.

No. National governments should be charged with maintaining the peace within their borders.

Citizenship- Everyone born in the Americas or who gained citizenship in any country would now be a citizen of every country in the Americas and be allowed to travel freely between the borders.

I actually think this is an interesting idea. I might just support it.

Would you want your country to join and do you think it would actually work.

As a general matter, though, I don't think the UotA should be a thing. Not with the way the world is right now, anyway.

[Rio Cana]

Bolivia is not Commie. In the last 35 years, Bolivia has managed to develop a true democratic system. This in turn has brought stability and a rising economy. Before that it was mostly coups followed by more coups. Most governments were military dictatorships. Inflation and so on . Morales might be left-leaning but he became Pres. via democratic elections. Yes, he tried to change the constitution in order to run for a fourth term (twice should have been suficient) but he lost the referendum which proves Bolivia's democracy works.

Read this on Bolivia's referendum of last year - http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 276751.ece

This on Bolivias rising economy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGQZpdv3eg

The video made me sick, but oh well. Bolivia aint Commie, but its' socialist, leftist President is commie. Let's hope he steps down at the end of his term. Let's hope their aint a fixed successor. Which I don't see any, just saying. ALBA is dominated by the leftist, socialist commies, or whatever one calls them, Raúl, Maduro, Correa, and Evo. Yes I read on Wikipedia about how great the economy has been under Correa. How he helped the poor. That his party won 61 % of the constitutional assembly seats. About the recent election in Ecuador, where Correa's backed candidate Lenín Moreno, won the Presidency in the second round elections, 51 % to 49 %. Promises to push forward the so called Citizens revolution, lol. Lenín Moreno, lol what a name.

Why did that video from the financial times of the UK. make you sick. It clearly shows the rising economic power of Bolivias native group which has been marginalized for centuries. Capitalism at work in Bolivia. There is a popular radio and tv reporter here called "Rafael Lenín López".

[Greater Miami Shores]

The video made me sick, but oh well. Bolivia aint Commie, but its' socialist, leftist President is commie. Let's hope he steps down at the end of his term. Let's hope their aint a fixed successor. Which I don't see any, just saying. ALBA is dominated by the leftist, socialist commies, or whatever one calls them, Raúl, Maduro, Correa, and Evo. Yes I read on Wikipedia about how great the economy has been under Correa. How he helped the poor. That his party won 61 % of the constitutional assembly seats. About the recent election in Ecuador, where Correa's backed candidate Lenín Moreno, won the Presidency in the second round elections, 51 % to 49 %. Promises to push forward the so called Citizens revolution, lol. Lenín Moreno, lol what a name.

Why did that video from the financial times of the UK. make you sick. It clearly shows the rising economic power of Bolivias native group which has been marginalized for centuries. Capitalism at work in Bolivia. There is a popular radio and tv reporter here called "Rafael Lenín López".

Ugly buildings, like for real, yuck. "Rafael Lenín López". what a name, lol.

[Keshiland]

1. As a matter of representation, 1000 members of parliaments (on a side note, fuck parliaments) wouldn't be nearly enough to adequately represent the American peoples. The US Congress is already one of the more unrepresentative legislative bodies in the world. This would be worse.

2. I don't see the value in having a second legislative chamber.

3. Absolutely not. Assumedly, this Union is actually a confederation of states rather than a federation or, God forbid, a unitary state. If that is so then no one should have more power than the leaders of the respective member countries.

4. Absolutely not.

1. That was 1 per 1M 1 per 100,000 would be 10,000 1 per 35,000 (What the US was originally supposed to have in the house) would be 28,571 and 1 per 10,000 would be 100,000 what one do you think would work best? Also, Parliaments allow for a vote to be proportional and immune from gerrymandering

2. That is to avoid the US, Mexico, and Brazil from controlling the government as they have over 50% of the population.

3. Im not sure how a government would run without an executive.

4. Judges are needed to avoid unconstitutional laws.

With the joining, I agree that majority vote is better.

[Napkiraly]

I say it doesn't have enough. For instance, Chile is not yet a territory of the USA.

Don't worry, I'm sure you guys will have no problem installing another dictator who likes to have his pet dogs rape his prisoners.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Thermodolia]

1. As a matter of representation, 1000 members of parliaments (on a side note, fuck parliaments) wouldn't be nearly enough to adequately represent the American peoples. The US Congress is already one of the more unrepresentative legislative bodies in the world. This would be worse.

2. I don't see the value in having a second legislative chamber.

3. Absolutely not. Assumedly, this Union is actually a confederation of states rather than a federation or, God forbid, a unitary state. If that is so then no one should have more power than the leaders of the respective member countries.

4. Absolutely not.

1. That was 1 per 1M 1 per 100,000 would be 10,000 1 per 35,000 (What the US was originally supposed to have in the house) would be 28,571 and 1 per 10,000 would be 100,000 what one do you think would work best? Also, Parliaments allow for a vote to be proportional and immune from gerrymandering

2. That is to avoid the US, Mexico, and Brazil from controlling the government as they have over 50% of the population.

3. Im not sure how a government would run without an executive.

4. Judges are needed to avoid unconstitutional laws.

With the joining, I agree that majority vote is better.

No a parliament doesn't guarantee a proportional vote or is it immune from gerrymandering. Only voting systems can change that. Parliament is just another word for legislature