CIA Predicts Fall of America

[Agathon]

Combine that with computerized gerrymandering of districts, you have a system that actually perverts the democratic intent of the founders and is closer to Putin's ideal of guided democracy.

I wouldn't be so hard on Putin. He's trying to deal with some of the most corrupt people on earth. Yeltsin has a lot to answer for.

[Mr. Harley]

We don't have corruption here in the United States - we have access for political contributions.

[Agathon]

I'll give the US one thing, corruption there has nothing on the Russian oligarchs.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
I take it that you don't think this gives you and yours the right to rule the rest of humanity.

We are not trying to rule the rest of humanity but we are trying to coordinate efforts with like minded people in order to maximize our voice.

[Agathon]

We are not trying to rule the rest of humanity but we are trying to coordinate efforts with like minded people in order to maximize our voice.

In practice it's closer to what I said. Protecting the "national interest" and all that other crypto-fascist nonsense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Protecting the "national interest" and all that other crypto-fascist nonsense.

Like every other country on Earth (we just come out and say it).

[Agathon]

Like every other country on Earth (we just come out and say it).

The problem is that 99% of the time the "national interest" is not the interest of the nation, but of a certain minority of individuals.

The bigger problem is that acting in this way just causes conflicts and trouble. You'd think that people would have learned by now.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The goal was to maintain superiority right? If we're going to form a closer union with someone then the obvious choice is people from the same cultural group as us. Its much more likely to work if all the parties have common bonds.

Maintain superiority? Why? And over who, in particlular?

[Mr. Harley]

Look at the Haliburton contracts and our vice-President. I know we aren't as bad the the oligarchs, but is the USA really that far away?

[Agathon]

It's a fair way off. The courts aren't obviously bought yet.

[Mr. Harley]

Excuse me? Federal judges are flown to fancy resorts for workshops that show how zoning and environmental laws are "taking" and violate property rights. How now you rights to a class action suite have been severly limited due to the new law - see the thread on that one. How the US Chamber of Commerce is heavily pushing judicial candidates, and how partisan elections to stack courts with conservative candidates hostile to individual rights are becoming the norm. I will grant your point. The courts aren't obviously bought yet, but it's not paticularly subtle, either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

how zoning and environmental laws are "taking" and violate property rights.

Well realistically they are. Environmental wetlands laws (and the like) are horrible for taking land and offering no compensation for those that already owned it and now don't have an asset anymore. The government should be forced to compensate.

With zoning, the government, at least has to allow some provisions for those engaged in prior use before the zoning came through.

The bigger problem is that acting in this way just causes conflicts and trouble.

And sometimes that can be good. It just depends.

[el freako]

Originally posted by notyoueither

You're incorrect in the first part. The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla of the area. When they don't like something it tends not to happen, such as Canada legalising pot. When they want something they tend to get it, such as when they needed assurances that our ports of entry would not be a backdoor to their security measures post 9/11.

You sort of make my point for me
If nothing can be accomplished without the US's approval then what you have is not a pooling of sovereignty by nations but the surrender of sovereignty by weaker nations to more powerful ones - the name for that is hegemony.
Hegemony relies on coercion, the hegemon gets what they want either through the application of force or through buying others off with resources - as such this system of international relations is similar to monarchy and as the strength of the hegemon is reliant on their relative power the system is unstable in the long run.
Europe's pooling of sovereignty relies on persuasion, changing the views of your partners is harder and takes more time than coercion (and it requires the buildup of trust), but the effect is far more durable as it does not require the constant application of power or bribery. This system is like the more representative governments that sprang up in western europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are correct in the second part. What Europe is doing in surrendering sovereignty to a larger organization is at the forefront of development. However, the Americans (nationally speaking) did that already between the 1770s and the 1860s. Their union was largely accomplished by the end of the Civil War. Europe is just now catching up.

...or at least, this is another way of looking at it.

I would say that the coming-together of the US states in the late 18th & early 19th century was more akin to other states that came together under the idea of nationalism - like my own Britian did in 1603-1707 or France after the hundred years war and Germany and Italy during the 19th century.

I believe the current coming-together is different as it is not based on nationalism but on cooperation, and thus represents something new in systems of international governance.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran - that's not the issue I'm talking about here. It's the vacations paid for by the plaintiffs groups with pending cases. That's the issue. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and craps like a duck. It is bribery, just we are more sophisticated about it.

[Agathon]

You're incorrect in the first part. The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla of the area. When they don't like something it tends not to happen, such as Canada legalising pot. When they want something they tend to get it, such as when they needed assurances that our ports of entry would not be a backdoor to their security measures post 9/11.

Nope.

Witness New Zealand's anti-nuclear laws. The Americans whined and threatened about that.

Our response: "stick your nuclear weapons up your arse".

Canada just doesn't have the balls.