Recent Summit of the Americas a Success, U.S. Official Says (taxpayers will be stuck money)

U.S. State Department ^ | 16 Nov 2005 | USINFO

[hedgetrimmer]

Protectionists fought the American Revolution, yet you have nothing but scorn for them. Are you an American citizen? Just curious.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Protectionists fought the American Revolution

That's right. George Washington fought the British so rich American sugar growers could overcharge Americans by $2.5 billion a year.

We need a new revolution so they can overcharge us by $5 billion a year!!!

[Mase]

You should get it straight, ok?

Oh, I've got you figured out all right. At one time I had you pegged for a socialist just like the protectionist economies you extol. But that's just the surface. Under all your inconsistencies is a sorely misguided and paranoid mercantilist who firmly believes the old Il Duce maxim: Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state."

Protectionists fought the American Revolution...

You're in dire need of a history lesson.

...a few weeks after the Declaration of Independence, Congress passed the “Model Treaty,” which proposed individual, liberal trade treaties between the United States and other nations. The treaty provided that natives of the signing nation would enjoy the rights of Americans and pay no greater duties in our ports and similarly that Americans would enjoy the rights of those natives and pay no greater duties than natives in that nation’s ports. These were the most innovative pacts of their time, and under instructions from Congress, our diplomats — Adams, Jefferson, etc. — fanned out over Europe to sell these pacts.

At the time of the American revolution the dominant trade policy, mercantilism, held that the state should tightly regulate trade to promote self-sufficiency and capture the maximum bullion. In 1776 our Founders rejected this policy in favor of more liberalized trade for three reasons:

First, many believed that freer trade, not mercantilism, created economic prosperity. As Chris White, a former law student of mine, has shown, some Founders, like Benjamin Franklin, were steeped in the developing Scottish enlightenment, which tended to promote laissez-faire. Others intuitively grasped that nations would prosper if they specialized in what they did best and traded for the rest, just as individuals prospered by choosing a job that was suitable for their talents.

Second, many followed the thinking of English Whigs and Tom Paine in understanding that mercantilism was in fundamental tension with the republican, politically egalitarian government they wanted to create.

Third, some Founders believed that mercantilism could be a cause of war as nations jockeyed for access to raw materials. In contrast, free commerce bypassed the machinations of rulers and permitted individuals to establish commercial relations with their fellow man worldwide. Citizens would then have incentives to make their nations keep the peace so that these valuable relations would continue.

The Second American Trade Revolution

..yet you have nothing but scorn for them.

As a paleo-mercantilist, you're the one at odds with the founding fathers.

Are you an American citizen?

When was the last time the U.S. rejected a free trade agreement, hedge? The last protectionist who ran for president got just 0.004% of the vote. Your version of citizenship is in the distinct minority and that's a very good thing.

[hedgetrimmer]

Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing above the state.

You're very fond of saying this. A thinking person would know that
"To prevent restrictions and discriminations, governmental control is therefore required. Such control is not only not inconsistent with the free-trade principle; it follows from it"

The famous leveling the playing field, of the "free traders". Government must intervene in order for "free trade" to exist. A paradox.

"Free trade" is the tool of the communists to promote "social justice".

Therefore it is that I would urge earnest men who aim at the emancipation of labor and the establishment of social justice, to throw themselves into the free-trade movement with might and main, and to force the tariff question to the front. It is not merely that the free-trade side of the tariff controversy best consorts with the interests of labor; it is not merely that until workingmen get over thinking of labor as a poor thing that needs to be "protected," and of work as a dole from gracious capitalists or paternal governments, they cannot rise to a sense of their rights; but it is that the movement for free trade is in reality the van of the struggle for the emancipation of labor.

Americans know that "social justice" and equal justice cannot coexist in our government. Poseurs try to say otherwise.

But look! Here is transcript of a "free trade" agreement between the US and Bahrain. It is a clearly stated goal of the agreement to promote communistic "social justice".

Bahrain continues the process of reform based on a commitment to the democratic value and social justice. In the United Nations’ Development Index which ranks nations on a variety of human development axes, Bahrain is number 36 out of 174 nations included in the survey, ahead of all Arab countries.

How can our country promote communism through "social justice"? Through the falsely named "free trade". I don't believe the majority of Americans want to see the proliferation of communism and socialism, but the "free traders" who have corrupted our government don't care. Just as long as they can wrest citizenship from the people and set up populations to become "consumers". Add to that the cheapest labor on the planet, slave labor, and you have the "free tradin'" dream.

[hedgetrimmer]

John O. McGinnis--clerked for Kenneth W. Starr,NAFTA labor lawyer and WTO panelist.

Its no suprise you picked a leftist/globalist university law professor who is a paid agent of the "free traders's" internationalist organizations to attempt to make your point.

[Mase]

How can our country promote communism through "social justice"? Through the falsely named "free trade".

Just when I didn't think you could get any more bizarre.....

Debating you always seems to degenerate into an argument over semantics. You have a unique way of interpreting things that is obsessive and rests somewhere between absurd and paranoid. Fortunately, your fringe world view is shared by an inconsequential number of Americans. We have not rejected a free trade agreement in recent history nor do protectionists win many elections. The vast majority of the American public knows better than you and you disdain them for it. That makes you an elitist.

John O. McGinnis--clerked for Kenneth W. Starr,NAFTA labor lawyer and WTO panelist.

You forgot to mention that, in addition to grasping American history, he is a Conservative and an expert in International Trade and Constitutional Law.

I suppose your only remaining option is to attack the person -- who just schooled you in American history -- as a leftist and lackey of the free traitin globalists. ROFLOL

Your protestations are nothing more than the dying gasps of a hopelessly feeble argument.

[hedgetrimmer]

You have a unique way of interpreting things

These treaties are binding contracts on the American people. The words "social justice" have meaning in a legally binding document, they are not just there to take up space. It is disingenuous to claim that these words mean nothing in an international treaty,so you'd best educate yourself on them.

You forgot to mention that, in addition to grasping American history, he is a Conservative and an expert in International Trade and Constitutional Law.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an "expert in Constitutional law". So what. McGinnis isn't showing anyone a grasp of American history, he has only provided the internationalist slant to it. He's a "free traitin globalist" in your words, and I'll buy that.

[Mase]

It is disingenuous to claim that these words mean nothing in an international treaty,so you'd best educate yourself on them.

I never claimed they had no meaning. We disagree as to the meaning of social justice and it is not surprising to me that an economic Eeyore such as yourself would naturally assume the worst from those words. As a Reagan conservative, I choose the accept a more positive meaning for justice based on a system of morality.

I think social justice is founded on basic liberties as outlined by John Rawls. These are principles of the modern conservative movement.

• freedom of thought;
  
• liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
  
• political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly;
  
• freedom of association;
  
• freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation); and
  
• rights and liberties covered by the rule of law
  

Of course, I wouldn't expect someone opposed to the basic freedom to trade to relate to these principles. Being caught up in paranoid conspiracy theories, it is not surprising to me that you would interpret social justice as defined by the left. Social justice has become a rallying cry for lefties all over the world as a reason for redistributing wealth. By virtue of writing these words into "free trade" agreements, the words take on exactly the opposite meaning of what you so erroneously infer.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an "expert in Constitutional law".

Ok. But she is not a conservative nor does she understand International Trade. Care to try again?

McGinnis isn't showing anyone a grasp of American history, he has only provided the internationalist slant to it.

Is that all you have to rebut his article? First you were schooled in American history and now you've been schooled in the meaning of "social justice." Even so, you persist in admonishing me to get educated. You are too funny. We'll call it The hedgetrimmer School of International Trade and American History where our ideas are subscribed to by a whopping 0.004% of the American public. LOL!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

She doesn't understand Congressional authorization, free trade, subsidies or the Constitution. I wonder if she's even an American citizen. It's clear that English is her second language.

[Mase]

It's clear that English is her second language.

That would explain the lack of comprehension. Interestingly, newly sworn in citizens possess a better understanding of our Constitution and how our government works than hedgetrimmer. Could this be another sad commentary on the state of our public schools?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could this be another sad commentary on the state of our public schools?

Either that or hedgetrimmer was never sworn in. Could she be an illegal?

[Mase]

Could she be an illegal?

Hmmmmmmm...

• "hedgetrimmer" as a screen name.
  
• Living in California.
  
• Serious issues with English comprehension.
  
• Liberal ideology
  

Could it all be just a coincidence?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could it all be just a coincidence?

Hedgetrimmer has jumped to wilder conclusions with much less data.

[antisocial]

"Until Congress authorizes spending, this means nothing. Just like hedgetrimmer hot air."
Oh, you mean like this?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2941:

Highlights:

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be--

(1) to promote economic and infrastructure integration among Canada, Mexico, and the United States;

(2) to promote education and economic development in Mexico; and

(3) to reduce the wealth gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States.

More:

SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Fund shall make grants for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects--

(1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States;

(2) to develop and implement post-secondary education programs in Mexico;

(3) to install telecommunications technologies throughout Mexico; and

(4) to construct other infrastructure that will carry out such purposes.

More:

SEC. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.

(a) IN GENERAL- The terms of the agreement establishing the Fund shall, subject to the limitation in subsection (b), require the Governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to contribute to the Fund.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Congress has authorized this spending? So what's your point?

[antisocial]

No they haven't passed it yet, but it was submitted by a Republican,John Cornyn. He is my senator and when I asked him about it I am ignored. He is a big "free trader", but is really a socialist at heart as you can see. He is but one of many in the good old GOP.

Social Justice, and economic justice are terms used regularly by WSWS and other international socialist websites. Maybe you should learn more about international socialism instead of insulting those who are trying to fight it. Not everybody that is against world socialism is a protectionist as you seem to believe.

[Toddsterpatriot]

No they haven't passed it yet, but it was submitted by a Republican,John Cornyn. He is my senator and when I asked him about it I am ignored. He is a big "free trader", but is really a socialist at heart as you can see. He is but one of many in the good old GOP.

If you're expecting me to defend every bill submitted or passed by Republicans then you've got the wrong idea about me.

Maybe you should learn more about international socialism instead of insulting those who are trying to fight it.

For the record I am against domestic and international socialism. I am for more and freer trade.

Not everybody that is against world socialism is a protectionist as you seem to believe.

Sure but hedgetrimmer is an admitted protectionist. So what's your point again?

[hedgetrimmer]

"meaning of "social justice."

The theory of Justice by John Rawls.

All social primary goods - liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect - are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored.

Social just according to your source means that all income and wealth be equally distributed, or unequally distributed to advantage the disadvantaged. This sounds like the phony "free trade" agreements you promote. It also sounds like communism.

The theory of Justice by our founding fathers.

Social justice and equal justice CANNOT coexist. Our constitution was based on equal justice. So whether you fool yourself into believing that social justice has anything to do with freedom of thought whatever, you'd better look at the pedigree.

Faith in justice, plain, ordinary justice,not social justice, fairly meted out, was a fundamental idea of the founding fathers. They understood that the faith, morality and ethics that guided God's law should form the basis of all man made laws. This faith formed the Rule of Law that has stood guard, until now, over the United States protecting it from the waves the totalitarian governments that burst into the European scene in the mid-20th century.

Now the totalitarians of Europe have seized on the "free trade" system to impose their form of social justice on everyone in the world, and it is blindly promoted by those who ignore the power of equal justice, and give themselves unconstitutional authority over other through social justice and the falsely named "free trade" system.

The Constitution creates a legally just society for those who would follow it. Yet those espousing social justice do not want to follow our Constitutional form of government, which allows individuals to follow their own, personal rules of just conduct. Instead, those promoting social justice operate under the assumption that individual conduct is guided only by external direction, from the state or other interest groups. Social justice is then used as a way to coerce individuals, institutions and the government to pursue fraudulent utopian goals defined by these external groups.

Social justice, is antithetical to the idea of the government securing liberty, and actually promotes government action against individuals.

[hedgetrimmer]

Good one!

[hedgetrimmer]

For the record I am against domestic and international socialism. I am for more and freer trade.

You have been shown over and over again that "free trade" isn't freer under the "free trade" system, but that the "free trade" system inherently needs the heavy hand of government to implement it. You have also been shown that the "free trade" system grants global authority over people, usurping our constitututional right to a representative republic in order to implement "free trade". You have been shown that the "free trade" agreements include the socialist language and principles of "social justice", and "sustainable development". You have also been shown that the language of "free trade" is inherently marxist.

Your point appears to be that you approve socialism through the fraudulently named "free trade", you are always defending it.