hedgetrimmer:
I certainly agree with your comment about the inflexibility of government employees, but I'm not sure I can agree with the idea that a more competitive government would have to disappear. In any case...
Regarding your "...the fundamental purpose of this nation, to protect individual rights in nation of self governing citizens" and "People should be able to change if that is what they desire...." You seem to be saying that individuals should not have to deal with market forces if they chose not to. In addition, those "self-governing" individuals should be able to tell their government to protect them from market forces.
If you, as an individual, want to opt out of the market forces, then something has to give. Either you lose your job (as I did), or you force some kind of protectionism on parts of the economy. The eventual result of this would be a lot like France, today. Once a job becomes "for life," hiring falls, the ability to be more efficient/productive by making changes becomes much harder, labor costs go up, everything is more expensive so the general standard of living declines (relatively), and your economy declines (at least relatively). Sounds a lot like what labor did to General Motors (although General Motor's short-term managment took the easy way out and allowed it to happen).
Should the government "create catastrophes?" No, but it also should not promote the kind of protectionism (except for protecting direct national defense...and I don't mean defense against the globalism) you seem to be promoting. John F. Kennedy said that a rising tide lifts all boats (i.e. a rising economy leaves everyone better off), but protectionism reduces the height of the tide leaving the few protected boats sitting higher than the rest who can't rise as much as otherwise (to strain a metaphor).
claudiustg:
I think we could deal with immigration in a sustainable manner. We could limit immigration: 1) to those who are willing to assimilate (must get a job, learn English, etc.), and 2) to provide a base of "starting out" workers (assuming we don't have enough already). I agree that Bush's spend-like-there-is-no-tomorrow policies drive me nuts, but if we can get spending controlled a rising economy will help lower the deficits...if the government hasn't already committed us to too many future handouts.
This is probably a dumb question, but its something I've wondered about. The Constitution gives the federal government the right to levy tariffs to raise money; because that is a Constitutional right, does the government have the power to negotiate away that right in trade agreements without a Constitutional amendment?