Wednesday, August 13, 2008

USA Should Open Borders, Open Minds

Tony's post about increasing racism in the KC area yesterday reminded me that I keep meaning to talk about how all of our illegal immigrant (and attaching racist issues) as well as several other issues with our nation seem to have one easy, obvious solution to me. We totally need a North American Union (you know, like the European Union) to mix together the best of Canada, America and Mexico and hopefully get some of the excess baggage our culture seems to insist on carrying.

From Canada we would gain their health care system, less stoopid attitude about drug use, and freakishly small homicide rate. From Mexico we would gain cheaper gasoline, more family-focused attitudes, and of course, some much needed diversity. Plus, this would open free trade across our borders, make it easier for us all to travel to our neighboring countries and could divert $ used for safeguarding our borders into, I don't know, something that would actually help people like a fucking education.

Anyway, it's a dream, but I like it.

Related posts:
My Vision of the Future
Human Rights are Meaningless in America


Like what you see? Subscribe here

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have always said we should annex Mexico or vice-versa. It solves everything from Mexican infrastructure to American labor issues, and I could retire in some place warmer than Florida. Win-win I say.

I heart Canada but Edmonton is no place anyone should have to be in the winter.

Xavier Onassis said...

I totally agree.

However, I think it is just a first step.

I would like to see it eventually expanded to Central America and even South America.

And Africa. And Europe. And Asia.

I know it sounds all SciFi-ish and Utopian, but we really need a Terran Union.

The old saying is that "no man is an island". That's true. But it is even truer that ALL of mankind IS an island on this planet. At least for now.

The sooner we realize that we are all in this together and we need each other to survive, the sooner we can get past the territorial, philosophical Neanderthal crap and move to the next stage of human and social evolution.

Shouldn't all of the planet's (and the solar system's) resources be pooled and shared to the greatest benefit of everyone?

Shouldn't the goal be that no human on the planet is left without the basic necessities of life or the means to achieve whatever they wish?

Shouldn't we all have an equal share in the success or failure of our species?

Beyond that, shouldn't all life, everywhere, have an equal stake in the success or failure of all other life?

How is this a point of contention for anybody? Seems like a forgone conclusion to me.

May said...

I totally agree with you that all of us peoples acting with the good of all the others in mind is the only smart way to run the planet. Now if we can only get there...

AD said...

I totally totally like agree too!!! We should create an all encompassing leviathan government! More authority telling us how to live our lives is the BEST idea yet! Just think, no more having to think about working hard to achieve more, you can just sit back and relax. The gov't will tell you where to live, what to eat, how many children to have and where to go to the doctor! Awsome! I'm like totally excited to give up all of my own achievements for the greater good of CanUSxico! Just think, after a while, they'll start killing off the handicapped and mentally ill, because...you know... they just don't contribute ANYTHING to society! Hitler thought that was a great idea too! Not to mention The People's Republic of China, the USSR, Fascist Italy, Fascist Japan and our old friends to the south, Cuba!

May said...

Way to totally miss the point. It's not about governments, it's about people and resources not being treated poorly because of stupid political reasons.

Idiot.

AD said...

When you say: "We totally need a North American Union (you know, like the European Union)." To most, that would indicate that you are referring to a government. Since you are comparing to the EU, which is, last I checked a governmental body that oversees regulations and laws in each of it's member nations.

You also say: "From Canada we would gain their health care system, less stoopid attitude about drug use, and freakishly small homicide rate. From Mexico we would gain cheaper gasoline, more family-focused attitudes, and of course, some much needed diversity." You are clearly indicating that a nationalizing health care and the energy industry is a must. I would again say that you are referring to governmental organizations.

Pardon me for not understanding the point. Since you addressed government entities, I naturally assumed you were leaning "political" with your comments. And since you have made statements that are disagreeable, I would say your comments ARE political. I guess I'm missing the "point" though. Please enlighten me as to how "resources and people being treated poorly" will be accomplished in your world without the use of politics and/or governments?

AD said...

When you say: "We totally need a North American Union (you know, like the European Union)." To most, that would indicate that you are referring to a government. Since you are comparing to the EU, which is, last I checked a governmental body that oversees regulations and laws in each of it's member nations.

You also say: "From Canada we would gain their health care system, less stoopid attitude about drug use, and freakishly small homicide rate. From Mexico we would gain cheaper gasoline, more family-focused attitudes, and of course, some much needed diversity." You are clearly indicating that a nationalizing health care and the energy industry is a must. I would again say that you are referring to governmental organizations.

Pardon me for not understanding the point. Since you addressed government entities, I naturally assumed you were leaning "political" with your comments. And since you have made statements that are disagreeable, I would say your comments ARE political. I guess I'm missing the "point" though. Please enlighten me as to how "resources and people being treated poorly" will be accomplished in your world without the use of politics and/or governments? Or am I just an Idiot because I don't understand your ramblings?

Bryan said...

Have to agree with AD here May, so if he's an idiot so am I.

If the world became one huge place without borders, then there would be nowhere to go if you didn't like it. And as long as there are two people left on earth there will be a disagreement about what to do next, so chances are that only one (or maybe a small handful) of people within this giant borderless place will like or agree with how it is run. What happens when those in charge decide that they don't like a particular religion? Or if they decide they hate homosexuals or people with a certain color of hair? It would eventually happen, and there would be nobody to stop them and no place for people to escape it.

May said...

It's stupid to treat the idea of government as an automatic enemy. Governments are made up of people and should be monitored by people.

I can't seem to get my words around what I mean, so I am happy with you not understanding because I honestly can't see your point either. A "leviathan government" isn't the only way people can work together to share resources and not blow each other up. However, there would obviously have to be political components because that's the way the world works. I think it is stupid to automatically assume that anything that could be set up to help people cooperate would become a Big Brother entity.

Bryan said...

I'm all for people cooperating, but for the most part I just want to be left alone to live my life the way I choose. The way I see it, as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's life, they have no right to infringe on mine. Any sort of cooperative among people and/or nations is certainly a good thing as long as it meets this criteria - who knows, I might even choose to take part.

Which brings me to a point - what if someone doesn't want to cooperate? What if they have more than their fair share of resources and they choose not to share them? Will they be forced to anyway?

I don't like that thought.

Xavier Onassis said...

bryan said - "If the world became one huge place without borders, then there would be nowhere to go if you didn't like it."

You are mostly correct. And do you know what that would mean? People could no longer just run away and hide from our problems. They would have no other choice than to work to make things better.

If everyone were truly engaged in making the world a more just and fair place for everyone else, where one group of people could not thrive and prosper at the expense of others, how could that be a bad thing?

May said...

I really don't understand reacting so strongly against a hypothetical idea that people might be able to work together without infringing on other ppls' rights. That's all I'm talking about.

Bryan said...

Xavier - What if the overall population decided that they served a new god, and that god required human sacrifice. What if you didn't even believe in this god but it turned out you were the next sacrifice? You are one person and you would be powerless to change it, so you think fleeing to another country would be running and hiding? What would simply accepting your death be? Courage and world changing? I don't think so, you would have accomplished nothing and would not even be mentioned in history.

I understand this example is overly dramatic, but it is just to illustrate a point.

A large group of people, given that they will never completely agree unless they are exactly the same (meaning no culture, no identity - a very scary thought), can only exist if there are checks and balances. Checks and balances must be enforced to have meaning. That means war, economic sanctions, and any and all other methods of enforcing them.

In other words - different countries.

I would love to see all countries agree enough to be allies. But what of different religions that have as core beliefs a hatred of one another? They will always fight until one of them ceases to exist. Who chooses which one gets to die off and which one gets to flourish? You? Me? I certainly hope not.

May said...

"They will always fight until one of them ceases to exist."

I don't believe this is true and I don't believe that the world and people are as unchangeable, cruel and uncooperative as you make them out to be. I believe that people can choose to live together in peace and again that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. I think we can all get along, share resources and not have stupid ideas about who follows what god or anything else trip us up. Maybe we're not gonna get there in the next twenty years, but that doesn't make it impossible. Giving up on people isn't going to make the world a better place tho.

Bryan said...

I agree, actually. I too believe that there is a good chance people can learn to work together eventually. But I will not give up my individuality, not even for that type of utopia. If it happens, I hope it happens in such a way that people can still be different from one another.

But it's that very difference that makes it so hard to achieve a utopia.

It would ultimately be a delicate balance I think.

Xavier Onassis said...

bryan - of course people will always be different from one another. But that doesn't mean that it is ok for one person or group of people to hate and exploit another group of people because of those differences.

And if anything, your previous comment reinforces one of my core values, which is that the world would be a VASTLY SUPERIOR place to live for everyone if people dropped their silly supersticions about all powerful sky-daddys and started living in the sane, rational reality that surrounds us.

Bryan said...

Xavier - I don't think there is an all-powerful Sky Daddy and there is no need to be condescending. If you wish to continue a proper discussion, I'd be happy to.

The fact is that no matter what, SOMEONE has to govern. No person or group of people is uncorruptible and therefore even if the leadership started out being benevolent, it would not end up that way. Therefore, any society that I can imagine will eventually crumble under human nature.

A society is formed, it grows, thrives, prospers, corrupts and when people get hungry enough it implodes. The rise and fall of nations and it is proven over and over again by thousands of years of human history.