NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

You could offer.....

Hm. I'm sure they'd prefer local control. Good treaties and trade agreements are probably a more realistic option.

Such a set up would not be fair, if we were dominant and the other members effectively our vassals. A union like this would only work as a union of equals. Can you offer any reason that your idea should be implemented other than you're American, and this is what you want? Also in regards to your libertarian, anarco-capitalist idea, not everyone wants that system. In fact, I daresay that those who do would be in the minority in the union you describe.

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"But who would want that? We have seen in Iraq that Americans have no understanding for the rest of the world. And you are not trustworthy, so why should anyone ever want to be ruled by you?

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

there no way i want to live in The United States of Earth or The United States of Terra
i would live in a United Earth if we had people living on other planets

Hm. I'm sure they'd prefer local control.

Theoretically, states are supposed to be almost completely autonomous, and would be if the Constitution was properly enforced.

Such a set up would not be fair, if we were dominant and the other members effectively our vassals. A union like this would only work as a union of equals.

And what makes you think that some states would get preferential treatment?

Can you offer any reason that your idea should be implemented other than you're American, and this is what you want?

Because America = teh uberwin :)

Also in regards to your libertarian, anarco-capitalist idea, not everyone wants that system. In fact, I daresay that those who do would be in the minority in the union you describe.

1) I never proposed or advocated anarcho-capitalism.
2) This would only be libertarian at the Federal level. The states would still be free to do whatever the hell they liked.

Because America = teh uberwin :)

True enough, but that's probably not going to be entirely convincing to foreigners, especially when you have more practical options, as I mentioned earlier. Good international agreements would accomplish what you have in mind, I would think.

And what makes you think that some states would get preferential treatment?

It would still be an American-imposed system; and why should the rest of the world agree to that?

Because America = teh uberwin :)

:rolleyes: This kind of arrogance is why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

1) I never proposed or advocated anarcho-capitalism.
2) This would only be libertarian at the Federal level. The states would still be free to do whatever the hell they liked.

1) Fine, laissez-faire, then.
2) And if a member state want socialism or communism, you would allow that, given your stated opposition?

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

You list a number of countries, yet leave many out...are they not up to par, or something?

I wouldn't much mind if it happened...but I won't hold my breath, mainly because the stricter interpretation of the Constitution which you describe is entirely unlikely to occur.

That, and I suspect some of those nations wouldn't be interested. Especially Russia and China.

We have seen in Iraq that Americans have no understanding for the rest of the world.

:rolleyes:

Cause the actions of our military in Iraq, and the decisions made by our government, completely and accurately reflect the knowledge and opinions of all our citizens.

Blanket statements make you look like an idiot.

Don't you think that if any of us wanted a state like that we'd've already implemented it? Or, at least, made some effort to?

eh, I don't think Russia and China would be at all interested in becoming part of the USA. Neither would Britain.

United States of Europe would be more appealing due to the EU's walfare provision and its foreign policy of development, prosperity and stabilisation in areas of conflict/instability.

The more antithetical to USA the EU becomes, the more attractive it becomes.

i'd support a world government, but not one stemming from a single nation which would retain greater than equal power.


eh, I don't think Russia and China would be at all interested in becoming part of the USA. Neither would Britain.

United States of Europe would be more appealing due to the EU's walfare provision and its foreign policy of development, prosperity and stabilisation in areas of conflict/instability.

The more antithetical to USA the EU becomes, the more attractive it becomes.
*nods*

But who would want that? We have seen in Iraq that Americans have no understanding for the rest of the world.

Precisely. We need you in Congress to show us the error of our ways :)

And you are not trustworthy, so why should anyone ever want to be ruled by you?

No one would be "ruled" by Americans. Even if only Japan and the UK joined, Americans would make up less than half of the House of Representatives.

It would still be an American-imposed system; and why should the rest of the world agree to that?

American-designed, but not imposed. Statehood would be voluntary, and if the Constitution was properly enforced, there would be nothing to impose on anyone except some copyright and anti-counterfeiting laws.

:rolleyes: This kind of arrogance is why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

But it's true. Despite all of the freedoms that we've lost over the last 200 years, we're still the most free country in the world, and we dominate it militarily, economically, and culturally. That is uberwin.

1) Fine, laissez-faire, then.
2) And if a member state want socialism or communism, you would allow that, given your stated opposition?

1) I never suggested or advocated laissez-faire, either. I only spoke of obeying the Constitution. The Constitution allows for regulations on interstate commerce.
2) Yes. Congress has no authority to tell the states how to run their economies.

i'd support a world government, but not one stemming from a single nation which would retain greater than equal power.



*nods*

The USA isn't a single nation. It's a federation of fifty. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work; ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, Congress has been grossly overstepping its authority and screwing around in state issues...

Note to self: repeal 16th and 17th Amendments prior to beginning world domination.

It's a good idea in principle, but just don't work in practice.

Us Brits were almost there, and then we started to give places back!

It's a good idea in principle, but just don't work in practice.

Us Brits were almost there, and then we started to give places back!

That's because those places were colonies and territories that you ruled against their will, not constituent countries with representation in your government.

That's because those places were colonies and territories that you ruled against their will, not constituent countries with representation in your government.

Bah don't use ya damn logics on me!

Bah don't use ya damn logics on me!

:D

See, British imperialism was made of phail, whereas American expansionism is made of uberwin :)

The USA isn't a single nation. It's a federation of fifty. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work; ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, Congress has been grossly overstepping its authority and screwing around in state issues...

Note to self: repeal 16th and 17th Amendments prior to beginning world domination.

fair point, and if - as america "should be" - a world government as you propose was truly Federal (and not lead by the USA) then i would have little problem with the idea in theory :)

i'm all for a Federal EU after all

The USA isn't a single nation. It's a federation of fifty. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work; ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, Congress has been grossly overstepping its authority and screwing around in state issues...

But that's one of the problems - who can say what the United States of Earth Congress might decide to do in a few years' time? And, since there would no longer be any other countries, you wouldn't even have the option of leaving.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4195/mondeuskf9.jpg

hehe :P

fair point, and if - as america "should be" - a world government as you propose was truly Federal (and not lead by the USA) then i would have little problem with the idea in theory :)

Well, we'd dominate the Senate for a while just because we're carved up into so many tiny states whereas Canada and Australia are made up of a few big chunks (every state gets the same number of Senators), but we'd quickly lose dominance in the House of Representatives. We only make up 5% of the world's population, you know.

But that's one of the problems - who can say what the United States of Earth Congress might decide to do in a few years' time? And, since there would no longer be any other countries, you wouldn't even have the option of leaving.

Several State constitutions specifically guarantee the right of that state to withdraw from the Federation.

Well, we'd dominate the Senate for a while just because we're carved up into so many tiny states whereas Canada and Australia are made up of a few big chunks (every state gets the same number of Senators), but we'd quickly lose dominance in the House of Representatives. We only make up 5% of the world's population, you know.


So America gets 50 representatives for every one of England's? No thanks.


Several State constitutions specifically guarantee the right of that state to withdraw from the Federation.

Then why didn't they withdraw once Congress started interfering in states' rights? Because it's not that simple - same as it wouldn't be that simple for one of the states you describe to just suddenly quit.

So America gets 50 representatives for every one of England's?

Not unless we have 50 times your population.

Then why didn't they withdraw once Congress started interfering in states' rights?

Because by the time the 17th Amendment was ratified, nobody - not even the state governments - cared about states' rights anymore.

Not unless we have 50 times your population.


What happened to 'every state gets the same number of senators'?


Because by the time the 17th Amendment was ratified, nobody - not even the state governments - cared about states' rights anymore.


And that's a risk you take when you join a superstate like the one you are advocating - there is a constant danger that the central power will decide it doesn't like you having autonomy.

[QUOTE=The Pictish Revival;12489829]So America gets 50 representatives for every one of England's? No thanks.

Well the UK is split up in to numerous counties there like our states with the all powerfull local councils reaping changes in that said county... like a bypass for example and um........ the introduction of the death penalty :confused:

anyway point being we should have a represenative for every county... that would even things up a bit. :cool:

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

Sounds like a good idea to me. EXCEPT ... then we would have to administer the damned thing and that's a pain in the ass we do NOT need! :D

What happened to 'every state gets the same number of senators'?

You didn't say Senators. You said representatives. Representatives are apportioned according to population. And if England joined the US, it would have more representatives than any other state (England = 50 million people, California = 34 million people).

If we're talking about Senators, though, I could just as easily say something stupid like "Oh noes! Teh Mexico would get 31 times as many Senators as California!"

Regardless, if the Constitution was properly enforced, England would have MUCH more autonomy as a state than it currently has under Parliament.

And that's a risk you take when you join a superstate like the one you are advocating - there is a constant danger that the central power will decide it doesn't like you having autonomy.

Yeah. That's why we'd have to be sure to put libertarians in Congress.


Well the UK is split up in to numerous counties there like our states with the all powerfull local councils reaping changes in that said county... like a bypass for example and um........ the introduction of the death penalty :confused:

anyway point being we should have a represenative for every county... that would even things up a bit. :cool:

America has counties too. Your equivalent of our State is called a "constituent country", and you have four of them.

Sounds like a good idea to me. EXCEPT ... then we would have to administer the damned thing and that's a pain in the ass we do NOT need! :D

There's not much to administer, really. The powers of Congress are supposed to be quite limited.

anyway point being we should have a represenative for every county... that would even things up a bit. :cool:

Yeah, but then you get into all sorts of problems. Some counties are bigger than others - do they get extra representatives? Does every other nation which joins the US of E get to have one rep for every branch of its former local government? If so, how will a Congress consisting of thousands of people manage to get anything agreed and sorted out?

Dude you know why the Soviet Union fell? Even when communism was being abolished all the SSR states wanted independence. The different cultures simply wanted their own seperate states.

For that reason if the USA wanted to encompass the UK, Mexico, and Russia (Canada's close enough culture-wise I think) then the union itself would probably collapse. And absorbing Russia would mean the majority of our homeland would move to Asia. I don't think I like that idea...

Americans.

Get the fuck away from our counties!:upyours:

We'll never join you!

Viva Eurasia!
Viva Africa!
Viva American Latina!
Viva Canada!
Viva Britannia!

Dude you know why the Soviet Union fell? Even when communism was being abolished all the SSR states wanted independence. The different cultures simply wanted their own seperate states.

That's because the central Soviet government had been holding them together too tightly. The Constitution calls for little more than a military alliance, a common currency, and post and patent offices.

Also, do you think that the cultures of Texas and Massachussetts are terribly similar?

If we're talking about Senators, though, I could just as easily say something stupid like "Oh noes! Teh Mexico would get 31 times as many Senators as California!"


(I did mean Senators, hence I was using a lower case 'r' for 'representatives'.)I don't follow what you're saying - what's stupid about pointing that out? Or are you saying that Mexico wouldn't in fact get that massive advantage?


Regardless, if the Constitution was properly enforced, England would have MUCH more autonomy as a state than it currently has under Parliament.


How? How could ceasing to be the largest of four counties which makes up the UK, in order to become one of a couple of hundred states making up the USE, possibly lead to greater autonomy?


Yeah. That's why we'd have to be sure to put libertarians in Congress.


Didn't work last time - why should it work this time?

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.
Well, that's just not going to happen. These days we are seeing a trend away from centralised government, not more.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.),
In which case, why would any other want to join a country with such a flawed constitution, if the federal government can overstate its mandate so easily?

we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?
But what advantage would it give to these countries to abolish the federal governments of China, Russia, Canada, Australia, Taiwan (technically) and for the UK and others to seek statehood?

Americans.

Get the fuck away from our counties!:upyours:
:rolleyes:

(I did mean Senators, hence I was using a lower case 'r' for 'representatives'.)I don't follow what you're saying - what's stupid about pointing that out? Or are you saying that Mexico wouldn't in fact get that massive advantage?

I'm pointing out that it's stupid to say that a whole group of states would have an advantage over a single state. American states are very different from each other. Some, like California and Massachussetts, are much like England, in that they are massive welfare-state bureaucracies with strict gun laws and frequent abortions; others, like Texas, are as phobic about centralized government as they are about gays. Nevada is the only state in which prostitution is legal, nobody lives in Wyoming, the folks in Arkansas are all inbred, and New Hampshire only pays its state legislators a hundred dollars per year. Twelve states have decided to ignore the Federal ban on medical cannabis. Trust me, the states wouldn't all "gang up" on England. That would require them all to agree on something, which will simply never happen.

How? How could ceasing to be the largest of four counties which makes up the UK, in order to become one of a couple of hundred states making up the USE, possibly lead to greater autonomy?

Because our Federal government is one of enumerated powers, with states having (in theory) autonomy on all other matters, whereas Parliament just does whatever the hell they feel like doing.

Didn't work last time - why should it work this time?

We've never had a Libertarian-controlled Congress before. And, sadly, probably never will.

Well, that's just not going to happen. These days we are seeing a trend away from centralised government, not more.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that I advocated decentralization prior to world domination.

In which case, why would any other want to join a country with such a flawed constitution, if the federal government can overstate its mandate so easily?

The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is that nobody in Congress ever reads the damn thing, and the voters are too stupid to pick candidates who do.

But what advantage would it give to these countries to abolish the federal governments of China, Russia, Canada, Australia, Taiwan (technically) and for the UK and others to seek statehood?

They would gain the freedoms and protections offered by the US Constitution, they'd get representation in Congress, they'd switch to the US dollar as their currency (known to be more stable than pesos, rubles, etc.), and people from those countries could even run for President. Oh, and they'd have the honor of living in the world's dominant military, economic, and cultural powerhouse.

...Despite all of the freedoms that we've lost over the last 200 years, we're still the most free country in the world,...
No.

No.

Oh? What country is more free than we are?

Oh? What country is more free than we are?
You said most free not, that no other country was more free. Besides which, I dont need to substantiate a case to the negative, it's your postitive ascertion, the onus is on you to back it up, not on others to disprove it.

You said most free not, that no other country was more free. Besides which, I dont need to substantiate a case to the negative, it's your postitive ascertion, the onus is on you to back it up, not on others to disprove it.

But it's really easy to disprove it.

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.

It's a good idea in principle, but just don't work in practice.

Us Brits were almost there, and then we started to give places back!

Except for the Falklands, which you felt you had to hang onto...for strategic sheep purposes. :p

Except for the Falklands, which you felt you had to hang onto...for strategic sheep purposes. :p

I think the Falklands can be looked at very differently from the rest of our former colonies. The people are overwhelmingly British in nature considering their culture, language, tradition etc, and also the fact that they wanted to remain British.

America has exported something incredibly irresistable.

Multinational corporations. Europe has done the same.

In the end, they will take over the world, and by the time anyone really notices, it will be too late to do anything about it.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state...)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare

Well....crap

Except for the Falklands, which you felt you had to hang onto...for strategic sheep purposes. :p

It's the rebels sir...they're here.

Good god man! Do they want tea?

I think the Falklands can be looked at very differently from the rest of our former colonies. The people are overwhelmingly British in nature considering their culture, language, tradition etc, and also the fact that they wanted to remain British.

It was an Eddie Izzard reference. :p

See? Arthais got it.

It's the rebels sir...they're here.

Good god man! Do they want tea?


No, sir, I think they mean business this time. They've brought a flag...

Except for the Falklands, which you felt you had to hang onto...for strategic sheep purposes. :p

It's funny you should mention the Falklands in a thread about US expansionism. Because of the irony, after all.

The governments in charge of the US for the last 150 years or so have used the Monroe doctrine, or the idea of manifest destiny, to rationalise US intervention in Latin America. Essentially, the idea was that the US government was going to protect all of the Americas from European involvement and expansionism. After all, isn't that what the Monroe doctrine is all about?

So, the ironic question is this: where was the US when Argentina wanted to get back some land from European control?

Funny how that worked out, you know, with the US government only wanting to believe in manifest destiny when it suits them....

EDIT: I obviously have no idea who or what Eddie Izzard is or was.

It was an Eddie Izzard reference. :p

See? Arthais got it..

Took me a moment, couldn't remember where I heard it from. I lnot so much remembered it was Izzard as much as I first just thought that this just sounded like something he would say.

Took me a moment, couldn't remember where I heard it from. I lnot so much remembered it was Izzard as much as I first just thought that this just sounded like something he would say.

You must become one with the Church of Eddie, my friend. :cool:

EDIT: I obviously have no idea who or what Eddie Izzard is or was.

Educate yourself with this short clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k).

I think the Falklands can be looked at very differently from the rest of our former colonies. The people are overwhelmingly British in nature considering their culture, language, tradition etc, and also the fact that they wanted to remain British.

...this may change as the sheep and penguins evolve. My money is on the penguins, but who knows, really....

I'm pointing out that it's stupid to say that a whole group of states would have an advantage over a single state.


The group would have an advantage. That's how voting works. If enough states wanted something that would benefit them whilst completely screwing over another state, they could push it through. That's why people would be reluctant to commit their nation to such a system.


much like England, in that they are massive welfare-state bureaucracies with strict gun laws and frequent abortions;


What an interesting perception of Olde England you have.


Trust me, the states wouldn't all "gang up" on England. That would require them all to agree on something, which will simply never happen.


Probably not, no. But the point is that your plan calls for every country to just drop its current constitutional framework on the basis of your: 'Don't worry, I promise we won't stitch you up.' And how would you persuade the more reluctant nations - offer them extra seats in the Senate? Won't the countries that have already joined object to that?


Parliament just does whatever the hell they feel like doing.


You are aware that the UK is a democracy, right? And that, in a parliamentary democracy, you elect people to make decisions? People who, as you say, do whatever the hell they feel like doing. At least until the next election.


We've never had a Libertarian-controlled Congress before. And, sadly, probably never will.


So... no reason at all to believe it would work next time around.

But it's really easy to disprove it.
No doubt, but I'm lazy. ;)

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.
Good to see not everyone is (as lazy as me).

Except for the Falklands, which you felt you had to hang onto...for strategic sheep purposes. :p
It would be very unwise to underestimate the strategic importance of sheep (note that lamb can be used to make a damm fine curry for instance, which can in case of armed conflict be good for troop morale). The strategic value of sheep rises when we consider black sheep given the importance of preventing the proliferation of carnivorous lambs of mass destruction.

So America gets 50 representatives for every one of England's? No thanks.


We should get one for every county in the U.K., there's more county's in England than states in the USA.

Secondly, bad idea this whole "USA Government". The Americans A) share different politics to the rest of the world B) Have vast cultural differewnces. Why would a country volunteer to give up itsa independence to another country 1000's of miles away. A united Europe I could understand, but not a world government effectively lead by the USA.

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

If you ever get your shit together (i.e. free health care for all, a fairer deal for the poor etc.) then we may consider allowing you to join the UK. You'll have to give up coffee and start drinking tea though.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/4195/mondeuskf9.jpg

hehe :P

Oooh. Maps. :)

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m209/gswelcome/USAgeo.gif

I'd actually prefer to see secession within the United States, so that the political environment would be akin to northern Italy during the renaissance- prosperity and liberty hand in hand thanks to political competition.

But it's really easy to disprove it.

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.

You know what that means.

*prepares to invade Estonia*

You know what that means.

*prepares to invade Estonia*

Nah, we only invade countries where we are trying to cover up the fact that we used to be friends. ;)

If you ever get your shit together (i.e. free health care for all, a fairer deal for the poor etc.) then we may consider allowing you to join the UK. You'll have to give up coffee and start drinking tea though.

NEVER!

But it's really easy to disprove it.

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.

No, not individual freedoms....

The State of World Liberty Project monitors the level of individual and economic freedom and limited government in countries around the world. We are also working to become a resource on the progress of libertarian and free market liberal political movements, as well as an international forum for discussion for people involved in these movements.

on Individual freedoms US ranks 19

No, not individual freedoms....



on Individual freedoms US ranks 19

In terms of freedom of the press, the USA ranks 32nd.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247

EDIT: And it ranks fourth in economic freedoms:

http://www.heritage.org/index/topten.cfm

Hm. I'm sure they'd prefer local control. Good treaties and trade agreements are probably a more realistic option.not to mention globalisation

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?
Then the US Constitution would no longer apply, since US Americans would be a small minority in such a superstate.

How about a different World Government start from Russia?

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

uh...no thanks

If you ever get your shit together (i.e. free health care for all, a fairer deal for the poor etc.) then we may consider allowing you to join the UK.

The irony here is that the OP was talking about abolishing the welfare state as an example of the US getting its shit together. One more reason why this sort of globalisation is sheer pie in the sky. For the forseeable future, anyway.

Plus, they won't back down on the tea thing - I expect tea is an example of Russia's evil influence on Europe, or something.

If you pay attention, you'll notice that I advocated decentralization prior to world domination.
That's a complete oxymoron. How would a country become more decentralised by ceding power to a central government, no matter how small?

The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is that nobody in Congress ever reads the damn thing, and the voters are too stupid to pick candidates who do.
If the Constitution allows a situation to occur where it is routinely violated by its government, it has failed to do its job, no matter how it happened in the first place, by voters or politicians. A constitution should be able to prevent unconstitutional activity, period.

They would gain the freedoms and protections offered by the US Constitution,
Most countries have a far more comprehensive Bill of Rights than the USA. I use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a benchmark, excluding section 33.

they'd get representation in Congress,
Please, I have representation in Parliament, and my seat isn't even gerrymandered AND I get to choose between five parties!

they'd switch to the US dollar as their currency (known to be more stable than pesos, rubles, etc.),
Or just adopt a pegged exchange rate.

and people from those countries could even run for President.
Really? That's nice. Because my country doesn't have a Prime Minister already.

Oh, and they'd have the honor of living in the world's dominant military, economic, and cultural powerhouse.
*Vomits profusely*

Despite all of the freedoms that we've lost over the last 200 years, we're still the most free country in the world, and we dominate it militarily, economically, and culturally. That is uberwin.

Who says it's the most free country in the world? It's no more free than most other countries.
Racism is rife
Your media enlightens nobody about the outside world.
The definition of terrorism is patchy
The Patriot Act is a breach of civil liberties and the first ammendment of the constitution.
Scientific and evolutionary theory is replaced by religion in some schools
You have to go to a crossing to cross the street
All illegal drugs are classified the same
The Florida Recount in 2000 was dubious since Jeb Bush was the Governer at the time.
Your President seems slightly illiterate
He was elected by a minority of the population because not all the population voted because there's no government standing who they support.
Corporations can exploit the workers on minimum wage until their hands bleed
The Police don't know when the right time to use a gun is
etc etc etc.

And if all states are autonamous in your model, then what's the point in having overall rule anyway?

But it's really easy to disprove it.

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.

That list is a load of crap, especially in terms of gun rights and tax rates.

Well....crap

The Preamble isn't legally binding, dumbass.

"Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated" - Mr. Jefferson.

It's funny you should mention the Falklands in a thread about US expansionism. Because of the irony, after all.

The governments in charge of the US for the last 150 years or so have used the Monroe doctrine, or the idea of manifest destiny, to rationalise US intervention in Latin America. Essentially, the idea was that the US government was going to protect all of the Americas from European involvement and expansionism. After all, isn't that what the Monroe doctrine is all about?

So, the ironic question is this: where was the US when Argentina wanted to get back some land from European control?

By that time, we had completely forgotten about the Monroe Doctrine. Most of us had even forgotten about Monroe himself...

The group would have an advantage. That's how voting works. If enough states wanted something that would benefit them whilst completely screwing over another state, they could push it through.

How so? Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 are written in such a way as to prevent this.

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another..."

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..."

And so on.

What an interesting perception of Olde England you have.

But pretty true.

Probably not, no. But the point is that your plan calls for every country to just drop its current constitutional framework on the basis of your: 'Don't worry, I promise we won't stitch you up.'

Stitch you up?

And how would you persuade the more reluctant nations - offer them extra seats in the Senate?

No.

You are aware that the UK is a democracy, right? And that, in a parliamentary democracy, you elect people to make decisions? People who, as you say, do whatever the hell they feel like doing. At least until the next election.

Yes. The difference is that under the British system, there are no limits on the powers of the central government, whereas under the Constitutional system, the powers of the Federal government are strictly limited, or at least they're theoretically supposed to be...

So... no reason at all to believe it would work next time around.

For there to be a next time around, there would have to be a first time around.


Secondly, bad idea this whole "USA Government". The Americans A) share different politics to the rest of the world B) Have vast cultural differewnces. Why would a country volunteer to give up itsa independence to another country 1000's of miles away. A united Europe I could understand, but not a world government effectively lead by the USA.

You're missing the whole point. The idea is that this super-Federation would not be dominated by Americans nor give preference to American interests. Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the UK have a combined total of 51 states, provinces, and constituent countries, giving them a 102-100 advantage in the Senate; their combined population of 223 million or so would provide a major presence in the House as well. That's not counting Israel, Taiwan, etc. The added states would not be "giving up their independence", they'd just be trading membership in one federation for membership in another. Political and cultural differences would be irrelevant due to the high degree of autonomy that the states are supposed to have (though the Mexican members of Congress might have to learn English).

In terms of freedom of the press, the USA ranks 32nd.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247

Poppycock. The First Amendment is supposed to stop Congress from meddling with freedom of the press. This apparently doesn't apply to TV and Radio stations (damn you, FCC!), but still...


Then the US Constitution would no longer apply, since US Americans would be a small minority in such a superstate.

That does not logically follow.

That's a complete oxymoron. How would a country become more decentralised by ceding power to a central government, no matter how small?

Because they'd be trading one central government for a less centralized central one.

If the Constitution allows a situation to occur where it is routinely violated by its government, it has failed to do its job, no matter how it happened in the first place, by voters or politicians. A constitution should be able to prevent unconstitutional activity, period.

Okay. If you can figure out how to correct such a problem, please let me know.

Most countries have a far more comprehensive Bill of Rights than the USA. I use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a benchmark, excluding section 33.

TV shows in Canada aren't allowed to have the word "war" in the title, Canadian gun laws are insanely strict, the provinces aren't allowed to have any autonomy in health care because it's nationalized...

Please, I have representation in Parliament, and my seat isn't even gerrymandered AND I get to choose between five parties!

Congress has more influence in world affairs than Parliament does.

Really? That's nice. Because my country doesn't have a Prime Minister already.

Our President has more influence in world affairs than your Prime Minister does.

By the way... http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/about for the win.

I'm getting really sick and tired of these, "America is an Imperialist pig" threads.

Theoretically, states are supposed to be almost completely autonomous, and would be if the Constitution was properly enforced.

No, The constitution replaced the articles of confederation, which set up a confederacy of autonomous states that was an absolute cluster-fuck. The constitution was intended to set up a centralized federal government that the states report to.

No, The constitution replaced the articles of confederation, which set up a confederacy of autonomous states that was an absolute cluster-fuck. The constitution was intended to set up a centralized federal government that the states report to.

How does that contradict what I said?

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

They wouldn't take it.

Speaking as a Canadian, I feel confident that most of us have no interest in becoming Americans, even those of us who like the US of A.

Certain American states are more than welcome to join Confederation though. Just send me your applications.

How does that contradict what I said?

Your saying that a document which was created in order to remove a confederacy is advocating confederation.

I think the idea as a whole is a joke. Why would we want Mexico or Russia? You import all the problems they have as well. Our cities have enough ghettos without adding Mexico, which is just one large national ghetto.

Besides it would never work even if, by some chance, it did happen. All those people are wanna-be Commies and Socialist. Your plan calls for electing Libertarians to run things. Communism/Socialism are quite possibly the polar opposites of eachother, hence why it would never work. Let the Commies have their crapy economy/living standard/ freedoms and let the Socialist keep their high taxes/unemployement rates and realativly stagnant economies

But it's really easy to disprove it.

The US is ranked eighth in terms of individual freedoms.

Look: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Apparently, Estonians are more free than the rest of us.
I find it hard to believe that UK has a higher Indvidual freedom rating than the US considering they ban/outlaw ludacris stuff like live fishing bait in Scotland. What a farce ...

Don't get me wrong, we have dumb laws too but no one actually tries to tie their pet elephant to a fire hydrant. Though I suppose the laws we do make, make up for the ridiculous laws that they pass over there. I admit I didin't expect the US to be number one though.

Americans.

Get the fuck away from our counties!:upyours:

We'll never join you!

Viva Eurasia!
Viva Africa!
Viva American Latina!
Viva Canada!
Viva Britannia!
You sir, win at the interwebs. Congratulations! Was the final boss hard?

That does not logically follow.

Yes it does, unless you like the idea of dictatorship. Other countries will not want to live under the US Constitution.

Okay, I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but here it goes: you know how the United States is super-huge in Jennifer Government? I'd like to see that in real life.

I believe that if the Federal government of the United States ever gets its shit together and starts obeying the Constitution (meaning no welfare state, no War on Drugs, etc.), we should offer American statehood to the ten provinces of Canada; the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom; the six states of Australia; the 31 states of Mexico; most of the 86 Federal Subjects of Russia; Israel; Taiwan; South Korea; and any other country that wishes to join us, as well as purchase Greenland, the three territories of Canada, the miscellaneous territories of Australia, etc. If China is ever liberated from Communism, I'd offer statehood to their 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities as well. "Special administrative regions" like Mexico City, Moscow, and Hong Kong would be given the same status as Washington DC. The federation would be renamed "The United States of Earth" or "The United States of Terra"

Thoughts?

No. Please go away now.

MTAE strikes yet again.

Speaking as a Canadian, I feel confident that most of us have no interest in becoming Americans, even those of us who like the US of A.

Certain American states are more than welcome to join Confederation though. Just send me your applications.

Wanna have a new Maritime Province? :D

How so? Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 are written in such a way as to prevent this.

I thought you said states would have total autonomy on how they ran their economies.


But pretty true.


Look, I know Americans have an unfortunate reputation for being ignorant of anything that happens outside of America, but do you really have to support that stereotype by making such clueless statements?


Stitch you up?


The meaning was obvious from the context.


No.


Then how would you do it? Why would anyone join a system that would see them under-represented in Congress?


Yes. The difference is that under the British system, there are no limits on the powers of the central government, whereas under the Constitutional system, the powers of the Federal government are strictly limited, or at least they're theoretically supposed to be...


Do you have the faintest idea how the UK Parliament is structured? Or what the UK constitution does or doesn't allow?


For there to be a next time around, there would have to be a first time around.


OK, I'll rephrase that. It didn't work with the USA, why should it work with the USE?


You're missing the whole point. The idea is that this super-Federation would not be dominated by Americans nor give preference to American interests.


Then you wouldn't even get Americans to agree to it.

Do you have the faintest idea how the UK Parliament is structured? Or what the UK constitution does or doesn't allow? I don't think this person has the faintest idea about anything outside of America, like most Americans. He is crazy, naïve and ignorrant if he thinks the world would want a US global government, no matter how much autonomy they are granted. Even if they were to be autonomous, they would still be influenced by the US, and to think anyone would want this or accept this is crazy. To tell someone that your way of life is somehow the "correct" way, as opposed to their own way of life, is ignorrant. It is infact the height of ignorrance, something for which America is famous for (outside America of course).

America is not the divine power of Earth and Americans need to pay attention to the outside world to realise this. The "American Dream" is propaganda. When people were migrating to the new world, yes that was the American dream for them in those days because they were seeking a better life. But to say the American way of life is the ultimate dream for everybody today is both the height of ignorrance and arrogance. Many of the people he is referring to are not seeking a better life, and even if they are, they are not seeking an American way of life. Unfortunately the American people do not have access to the outside world unless they either actively search for this information or leave the country because there is a media blackout on the way of life outside of the US. If there is any reference to the outside world it is usually though stereotypes. As a person living in the UK, I can see that the UK is becoming increasingly like this too, and deliberately so too. A lot of the stuff about the outside world in the media consists of how great America is, war and rip-off holiday packages from travel agents.

Incidentally the UK does not have a constitution. The closest thing we really have is the Magna Carta issued in 1215 which directly influenced English common law, and also the US Bill of Rights. If we had a constitution, one of the main things I would include in there would be to ban Scottish politicians from voting on solely English matters in the Houses of Parliament. This occurs because England is the only constituent country without a devolved parliament.

Incidentally the UK does not have a constitution. The closest thing we really have is the Magna Carta issued in 1215 which directly influenced English common law, and also the US Bill of Rights.

Nu-uh. The UK has what's misleadingly called an 'unwritten constitution'. Meaning that it derives from a number of sources, not from one document. Acts of Parliament, the few remaining bits of Common Law, and legal precedent created by judges' decisions in court are all part of it.

Well Futurama says it's going to happen. And Nixon will be President in 1000 years time...YAY.