Inevitability of the Globalism

I've spent a lot of time criticizing globalism and the planned North American Union (the combination of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico similar to the European Union), but I've come to the conclusion that it is inevitable. As long as there's more profit to be made by outsourcing labor, than it will continue to happen. A lot of people, myself included, tend only to look at the cons of globalism: How it will eliminate national sovereignty and take American jobs.

I was listening to NPR, and heard a story that a British company beat out Boeing for a tanker contract with the U.S. government. People were in an uproar because Boeing is an American company and it would take labor from Americans, however, this British company would actually use more American made parts than Boeing, and would create more American jobs than if Boeing received the contract. That's one example of the benefit of globalism. Another example is that Honda and Toyota cars are manufactured in the United States. This creates jobs in the U.S. when American car companies continue to be downsized. BMW recently announced a plan to build cars in the United States as well. People are always going to look at the negative more than the positive, because humans tend to be pessimistic creatures.

As to the loss of national sovereignty, so what? The world changes and we need to change with it. The United States is a great thing, but the borders of the United States were defined when France still had control of Canada and Spain had control of Mexico. As the world gets smaller, so do national divisions. I'm as proud to be an American as the next person, but we can gain a lot from a partnership with Canada and Mexico. For one: Mexico has huge supplies of oil. By integrating Mexico economically with the United States and Canada, we have direct, tariff free access to Mexican oil. I'm not sure how this relationship works as of now but it's an interesting fact. Two: Canada is a very stable country. By being apart of this country, we can potentially be more stable by adopting some of their policies.

Look how the countries in the European Union have benefited from their supranational organization.

Aside from increased security due to having a singular force around the continent, and the economic advantages of creating more markets for goods, there are the risks. The major risk, is of course, too powerful of a government. There would need to be checks and balances, similar to the United State's Madisonian democratic system. There would need to be some sort of legislature, along with an executive and judicial branch. Also, there should be a purely governmental branch, unlike the private federal reserve, that regulates commerce and coinage across the NAU. We definitely need checks on Tyranny.

Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that something like that would occur, the people, it seems, would have more power, because there would be more people to have the power. Should revolution be necessary against the NAU, there would be many more people to execute the revolution.

In time, I will turn this rant into a coherent source-backed, essay to better espouse how a supranational NAU would have to work in order to check tyranny. as of now though, I'm all for an NAU. After all, Jefferson said we needed a revolution every 20 years, meaning that the constitution would be changed as well, but backed with the same natural inalienable rights that we have now.