http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080612131233.ilqjr0gg&show_article=1
- - - "In a time when even NAFTA is being called into doubt -- when candidates can draw cheers by denouncing trade deals with our next-door neighbors -- then we're at risk of going down a very destructive path," Cheney added. In what appeared to be an underpinning of Republican Senator John McCain's pro-free trade stance in his election campaign, the vice president warned that protectionism "is the refuge of a tired, fearful nation -- and that is not the United States." - - - On this issue I part company completely with Republicans, and categorically with Democrats. Democrats' "protectionism" is big government meddling of the their typically know-it-all variety, but because we are used to thinking in terms of false dichotomies, we believe these are the only two positions on the matter. Either you are for free trade without regulation, you are for free trade with regulation (aka, so-called fair trade). The latter is not the oxymoron it sounds like, because the "free trade" part is really a philosophical goal of global economic union. Indeed, free trade (whether "free" or "fair") has nothing whatever to do with *trade* at all: it is really about global *division of labor*. That's the clever little lie underneath the debate that causes all the confusion. Democrats merely wish to regulate said global economic union in the same way they wish to regulate all economic activity, that is to say, from the top down, via massive legislation and bureaucracy. The Cold War epitomized that false dichotomy: Either global union via capitalism or global union via socialism/communism. The common denominator was always global union. Hence the global nature of the conflict. Few on Capitol Hill are really *against* free trade according to its real meaning. FWIW, I am working finally on my long-planned book/treatise, which I call "Beyond Babylon: The Case Against the Global Economy." It is actually also a restatement of the case for *protection* as our Founders made it, which is really about *sovereignty* not *isolation*, and which they embodied in the form of the American tariff revenue system that for 150 years was the sole source of revenue for our federal government. (Almost nobody knows this!) The book will also provide an explanation why all that blather about the inevitability of globalism is a canard used to deflect from the philosophical debate by pretending that said inevitability is a matter of economic fact, not political will. This is a complete lie, reminiscent of Marx et al.'s argument about the "inevitability" of socialism. And I explain how, if every nation on earth derived their sole revenue from trade via an ad valorum tariff on articles of foreign manufacture, rather than from an income tax, there really would be an end to war, both national and individual liberty would be maximized, and nations would fully retain their sovereignty while at the same time benefiting from cultural, political and economic interaction with other nations. The only difference is that they would not be required to meld their economies into one, as free trade requires, and share the same form of government universally. Each country could retain their own unique and diverse traditions. Anyway, the Big Dick is totally wrong on this issue, and the only silver lining I see in this dark political season is the fact that free trade without regulation is on the ropes. Now if only we could knock both fighters out of the ring with a single blow... - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
