Skip to main content

North American Future 2025- A Gift From Canada

With the release of a Canadian Report from the CSIS Americas Program on the future integration of North American Society, called North American Future 2025, that is the creation of MexiAmeriCanada- I have to say after reading it I am less then impressed by its lack of Pan Americanism. It basically creates a North American Empire that excludes the rest of the hemisphere.

If you want integration and a borderless economy that is a fine goal for any one who honestly believes in free markets, but note that it should be the entire hemisphere and come as a result of sovereign republics that believe in the principles of Jeffersonian Democracy or Bolivarian Democracy and there will be less turmoil in doing it.

You do not need to create crisis after crisis to bring a hemispheric society together, the OAS can do that through greater and uplifting cycles of mutual development, free markets, trade even with people we have had historical disagreements with, and prosperity for our citizens ensures we integrate without losing our charters and cooperate on mutual and equal grounds.

Exxon Mobile's portion of the document is just deplorable, as it does not lay a true groundwork for energy security or offer any alternative for development and cooperation.

If you want "borderless" nations, as opposed to a hemispheric visa free zone that is something far different from the pan-Americanism Jefferson or Bolivar advocated and is an affront to their ideals and goals for this hemisphere. That was, as I recall, the ideal that Lenin promoted, and Marx felt would create a world communist society. Again, and it is worth repeating that is not Jeffersonian or Bolivarian Pan Americanism.

If you pursue what this report suggests you virtually ensure that many Americans North and South will resist it and wake up unprepared for its consequences.

Americans must be willing to work together as partners now to reassert the Monroe doctrine and remind the world that the Americas are for all Americans from Tierra Del Fuego to Newfoundland and we really have two important models of government, one derived from Thomas Jefferson, the other derived from the Doctrina Latin America of Simon Bolivar, De San Martin and O' Higgins.

Narcosphere news has some good snarky articles on South American integration processes.....and notes, with irony "see some progress has been made, now Uribe attacks and kills left-wing narco-traffickers and Chavez kills right-wing paramilitary narco-traffickers."

Still, it proves that if those two can reach a deal on these kinds of security issues, anyone can.

There should be these two alternatives (Jeffersonian and Bolivarian) that are the unique products of arguably the two most extraordinary American minds- if you choose to proceed with an American community this is a good way to do it.

The other way virtually ensures we are at war for the next century or so.....it is possible that many times these wars would be with American countries who are our natural allies.

We must never forget that all Americans are a tiny minority of the world community.

If only we would let them develop their own way and work together with them for the benefit of all Americans: that is the Pan-American vision of Jefferson, Madison, partly Tyler in the north and Bolivar, San Martin, O'Higgins, Miranda and Deodoro da Fonseca in the south.

The other model was British Imperialism and I do not advise we regress to that with a mercantilistic dark age.

The vision I am offering gives you the right to work together with every sovereign nation in the hemisphere without conflict and for mutual benefit, with the British Imperialistic model expect all Americans, north and south, to rage against the machine without understanding the goal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...