A question of sovereignty

The local blogger D.D. Crabb of Crabbin’ has spent quite a bit of time and posting on the efforts to create a North American Union of sorts, based on the European Union and certainly a threat to our constitutional government. Today he posts regarding an interview done by American University professor Robert Pastor, a leader of the “North American Community” crowd. Here’s the money quote:

“Our founding fathers created a system of governance that was not designed to be efficient but was designed to protect freedom. Therefore, you created checks and balances that did protect freedom but also made it difficult to move forward on important issues.”

The way Pastor states his belief is troubling. In other words, American freedom and sovereignty is less important than efficiency. Unfortunately, I can’t see Canada and Mexico as paragons of efficiency.

In Canada, we have an industrialized nation much like the U.S. and one with plentiful natural resources (particularly oil), but with them comes the baggage of their socialized health care system and their pacifism in international affairs. Mexico is also rich in oil but their crude is controlled by a state-run entity and those oil riches do not circulate down to the population at large. This is why a huge number of Mexicans live and work abroad in the United States. The Mexican government can charitably be termed as awash in corruption as opposed to described as just plain criminal. In recent elections, the leftist candidate lost by a small margin and (of course) cried fraud so Mexico is a divided country as well.

With efficient organizations, a merger tends to accentuate the efficiency – so usually this holds true with free-market conditions. Additionally, the element of competition is helpful with creating better outcomes. However, government and bureaucracy is the antithesis of efficiency. It’s my fear that a merger of this sort between the three governments would bring out the worst in each. The Canadian health care system would certainly survive and corruption endemic in Mexico would likely take root in the U.S. As opposed to being a leader in protecting freedom, this union would be neutered in that respect.

The best way to move forward on important issues is to allow the most freedom to be innovative. Looking at the European example, a North American Union (with common currency, multi-national legislature, etc.) does not appear to be a course we want to follow.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.