Free Trade

FREE TRADE:

FREE CORPORATIST TRADE: The Founders’ idea was to fashion a government that would check itself, intrude as little as possible, and provide for such essential and common needs as can be met only by government, such as for common defense of the nation’s borders. However, borders and even entire cultures can be undermined and overwhelmed not only by physical invasion, but also by infection by corporatist ruses. Insofar as each corporation is created, licensed, and approved by the government, the government has at least an obligation to regulate its creation so that it does not run amuck over the freedom and dignity of the people. In that respect, ask: Must government regulate actions of international corporatists at least to the extent necessary so they are not allowed to render republican representation a charade? To ask such a question is to light its answer: Of course! Because the idea is not to replace government with free reigning international corporatism. Rather, the idea is to defend a nation of freedom and dignity against the onslaught of international collectivism – regardless of whether the onslaught is by direct invasion across borders or by indirect infection, through international corporatist viruses.

QUESTIONS BEGGED:  I would think more about fundamental questions that are begged and not answered. Such as: Just how much open-society, free-trade, and devil dealing can we afford with collectivist countries, without capitulating to be collectivized by them? Isn’t international crony corporatism its own form of collectivism? In any event, I would not unlock my doors to trade with someone bent on undermining my home just because I was envious of bananas or diamonds. As for the rare earth stuff, well, I suspect we could trade for that without allowing ourselves to be undermined. Yes, if men were angels, free trade would be great. For that matter, if government were competent, Krugman's collectivist solutions would work.

However, seeing the door locked, the smart wolf will always come courting in coat and tie. But underneath, he is still a wolf. Too often, the salesmanship of "trust me, I just want what's best for the world" is camouflage, al-Taqiyya, or plain old Mafiosi, holiday-turkey pretense. Simply put, I don't see it as good trade to lose our industry in order to deal bananas or diamonds with despots, just because "free trade" has a nice ring to it. We need not be blind to how Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is in thrall of moneyed (corporate) interests, paying only lip service to principles of representation. Just my 2 cents.

UNREALITY OF FREE TRADE:  It would be one thing if there were such a thing as free trade. Or if we were talking about free trade between individuals and small businesses. But I suspect most of what passes for "free trade" is done under the guise of fictitious persons, i.e., corporations, many of them international -- with no loyalties to nations, persons, or values, and with few qualms against doing whatever is needed in order to compete in the local culture.

Being so "tolerant" in our diversity, I wonder how much we are learning to look the other way, as evolving "corporate mores" find no shame in selling national secrets or investing internationally (even illegally) in politicians. Not to mention that various nations still engage in practices calculated to favor local corporations, maintain local prices, and help dump stuff on our markets.

My point is, once free trade comes to be an illusion, in that we are the only ones doing it, while everyone else is robbing us blind, it seems a little short sighted to think, well, if we set the example, maybe we can get others to follow. Sort of reminds me of Obama setting the example to try to get Muslims to "unclinch their fists."

Frankly, I suspect North America probably has almost all the resources it needs. I hardly see the reason to help Arabs develop energy resources while we restrict our own, so we can enrich them so they can undermine us at home. Look under the apologies for "free trade" and I suspect there will be found a lot of "free corruption." In any event, an infectious kind of Soros corruption has made America very ill, IMO.

I would be far more comfortable if we were talking about free trade among nations that respect individual freedom and dignity over regimes that run roughshod over the collectivized, as by socialism, communism, despotism, or corporate-run statism. But we are not. As I see it, "free trade" tends to be a slogan used by those who wish to collectivize us because it still carries some nice connotations.

SMART TRADE:  IMO, we need "smart trade" more than free trade. The kind of "free trade" we have now will inexorably ruin American industry and feed the rise of collectivizers. It hardly comforts me that collectivizers who come to own America's politicians and thus rule the rest of us happen to be cronie capitalists instead of traditionally socialistic despots. Either way, for everyone who isn't the lead dog, the view for the middle class that is to be ruled will be the same.