What is the general opinion of forming a superstate in America? Could it be possible...

Oh, I see replies. I got distracted with video games and almost forgot to check if there was more to read.

Yes, this has long since been a topic of interest for the longest time, but never really beyond the scope of musing. It was actually through conspiracy theories that I came to know about it (I'm no conspiracy nut myself, so I don't take any of it seriously other than can be obviously seen). It made me curious what was wrong at all with joining nations. Canada and USA are compatible enough culturally that a merge would be fairly seamless. Let's not bring up Quebec, please.

How far south would you think it'd be worth going? I mean, going by historical trends, generally, expanding too far tends to affect the influence and control of a nation over cultural and economic differences to the point that cracks are created and eventually break the nations apart. The empires of old pretty much, but in this day and age where the telecommunications is widespread and information, culture and general current event happenings can be traded easily, maybe it could be really good. The strains would show when language comes into play, where the north/northeast will be primarily dominated by English and the southwest/Caribbean would lean heavily towards Spanish, culture could be lost in translation because of this.

Yeah, I understand this part. I think FDR had a good idea when he made the New Deal back then, and I think it would also work here if you also bring industry planning into it. The richer states would probably object to this though, on account of such projects taxpayer funded (speaking of, Trump's new tax system is insane).

And yes, I definitely do agree that the process needs to be goal-oriented and aimed towards poverty eradication. Canada would be first, and all US territories would definitely need to be incorporated (either as new states or merged into bigger states) so that they get actual representation.

Speaking of representation… we would probably need a new congress venue, because I don't think we'd be able to fit an acceptable number of reps in a possible House and to represent about 500,000,000 people. The 435 cap is already terrible with the 700,000/rep average, imagine the nightmare of reapportioning for this many people. Actually, this would be the best time to kill gerrymandering by increasing the cap and lowering the people/rep down to like 350,000~500,000/rep (1,000~1500 seats). Mind you, this wouldn't be that much better (the federalists actually wanted a lower number than 100,000/rep), but it'd make things more balanced than they are now.

Yeah, that I was aware of (I'm American, so I sorta know the political regions). Just wanted to make sure since theoretically speaking, Mexico would pretty much become the new "south" in terms of geographical location.

This was actually the premise of one of the posts I saw that made me curious about the whole idea and why I hadn't taken shape at all in the first place. NAFTA is shit, because it's only import/export of jobs and money, but a more structural NAU has more advantages to everyone involved that there are disadvantages for it to happen. Everyone is too hung up on tribalism and miss the forest for the trees. I understand national pride and all, but it doesn't really go away when two nations combine. Your history is there and your potential is exponentially increased. A new flag and anthem wouldn't necessarily end that (I imagine no one wants to be Venezuela in their current state).

I think the whole bit of the laws comes from the US being a nation itself and the common standards being based through the understanding of the US Constitution.You can't really make too many draconian laws without getting a SCOTUS judge reaming you up the ass for it.

My dyslexia made me read that as FARC, the Colombian revolutionary group. I was all "WTF when did they have people that far north" until I did a double take.

US should balkanize. Cascadia ho

Doesn't it already exist? Central American integration has been ongoing for a while now, albeit slowly. There are currently no borders between Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Integration_System

This is something I'm very interested in. My instinct is for a federation of smaller far more sovereign states based on equivelant GDPs/populations held together in a decentralized economic union, but I'm really not all that knowledgable and would like to know the arguments for and against both balkanizing into a federation and super-states.

I think a better option is something based on self-sustaining bioregions

Related, we need a Cascadia flag

How would you designate bioregions based on that map you provided?

I chose this example because it contains most of North America as a whole but it's actually a map of ecoregions. Bioregions are clusters of symbiotic ecoregions. An example of well defined bioregions would be from what WWF has defined as "the global 200":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_200

Wouldn't Balkanization run counter than an Union? I mean, I understand the part of allowing states more control over matters within their borders (like how the federal govt is overreaching by attempting to prosecute commercialization of marijuana and its derivative products in states where it has been decriminalized or fully legalized in the 10 or so states). What I don't understand is why Balkanization would work in this case considering it might risk triggering another civil war (going by the definition where nation states are formed through hostile means).

Division though GDP/capita might be interesting albeit very hard to do, mainly because some areas tend to have wild fluctuations of income and population from one street corner to the next.

I could understand, on the other hand, splitting major states like California, Texas, New York and Florida in such a way that their populations are similar, yet, balanced against the rest of the top 20 US states (the same could be done in the opposite direction, with less populous states get merged with other smaller states to have better standing overall, like giving Alaska control over Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut). What I don't know is what kind of repercussions splitting major powerhouse states would have on the overall economy of a nation like the US, let alone a theoretical NAU.

Wait, is what I theorized what you meant by Balkanization?

Balkanization is the rapid breaking apart of a union, like what happened at the beginning of the Yugoslav wars.

I was thinking of that region in particular, but generally, that kind of geopolitical shifts pretty much ruins most parties involved. Although what you said (you're the guy I was replying to, right?) also plausible, my musings were more along the lines of creating a damn-near completely self-suficient nation with greater economic stability.

Somewhere, in a better world…

Here's the complete one comrade.

It's just not going to happen. The U.S. is going to fragment before they ever figure out the mechanics of joining the three (US Mexico Canada)

...

polite bump in case anyone else wants to talk

I will let it die after this one.

Technocracy Inc was all about this sort of thing.
While just about every modern Technocrat now supports a single global state - it is nice to look over older material to imaginewhat may have been.

These are very interesting to see. I didn't know this was discussed that far back.

I am wondering why they chose to go as far south as the Caribbean for expansion though.

Well they almost certainly wanted to eventually include all of the Americas.

The area in the above pictures was only selected because at the time it was calculated as what was needed for total autarky.
I imagine they included the Caribbean due to the ability to access gulf oil deposits and the climatic growing ranges offered by the tropical islands.
But I'm not familiar with that part of the world and it is a concept that Technocracy has moved past, so take that with a gain of salt.

I see. Well, I went on my own research and noticed something fairly interesting. They proposed a 24/7 production cycle with maximum efficiency.

I-i wanna become POTUS so that I can achieve Viking Annexation… too bad they don't give a fuck about NA and prefer to deal with Yorups…

Well of-course.
Those are still all part of Technocracy today.
If you would like to know more about Technocracy, please watch the video below:
youtube.com/watch?v=NJwOoy9It2c&t=1820s

I don't believe they ever included Iceland in their plans.

Pic 4 in your post here has Iceland painted red. I am fairly certain that is Iceland.

Ha.
So it does, that's late period Technocracy Inc for you.
As I said, it is a rather dead concept and as an Australian, not one I have much interest in.

I like some aspects of it at first glance, but I highly doubt that some of the more extreme methods would be hard to implement. Would be interesting to see a nation experiment on some relatively large community to see how it fares.

They do have good taste in choice of expansion. I just noticed how one of their maps detailed a defense of the nation, so I assume their approach involved closing as many gaps that could be insertion points.

Fuck no, we're already too fucking big to run efficiently

The world's population or Australia?
If the former, I'd like to know your reasoning. If the latter, I wasn't strictly speaking of Aussies engaging in frivolous experimentation.

I'm more partial wo Puerto Rico, what with it being in an economic shithole, maybe they can be used as a giant social experiment in exchange for helping solve their problems.

Fucking monkeys, why cant you piss off to some uninhabited island in the pacific and leave the rest of us alone.

It's very very important that you put the capital in Suriname to leave everyone equally unhappy.

Biological weapons mixed with nuclear strikes in key cities and infrastructure.

Why dont you return to your homeland, you'll be happier there.

Do you really want to add 127m largely conservative, religious people to your country?

actually reactionary or economically conservative?

Why do they keep electing left wing governments the US has to have overthrown

Actually reactionary. Outside of Chiapas, pretty much tere is no left left (heh) in Mexico.

Mexico hasn't had a leftist president in a long, lonnnnnnnnnng time.

America is cancer as it is already, I dont want any more of it.

How does that translate to in American "left-right" politics? How much of the population would you consider as a "Republican voter"? I figure that maybe what you refer to "left" maybe further left than the current American standard, which is somewhere left of center.

UPHOLD
MARXIST
DE LEONIST
REEDIST
THOUGHT