Posted on 11/25/2002 8:15:37 AM PST by SAMWolf
I hope they don't kick me out of the Republican Party for this.
But free trade is a bad idea.
For years it hasn't set right with me, and I've tried to figure out why. And now I know. It's because it violates a simple principle of life.
And that is self-reliance.
International free trade, while certainly necessary and useful to an extent, can easily be overemphasized to such a degree that it jeopardizes a country's economic self-interest and national security.
The United States is a good example.
But first, let's look at Mexico.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, all Mexican protections against American or Canadian agricultural imports are about to disappear. That means cheaper Canadian and American farm products are going to flood Mexico.
And Mexican farms are going to close down. The impact on Mexican agriculture is going to be immense.
Which means Mexico is going to be less capable of supplying its own needs. And it means a ton of farm workers are going to be out of work and headed north. And that's not good for anybody.
Just like it's no good that the United States has a dramatic trade deficit, that it buys far more from overseas than it sells. And that there are entire sections of the American economy which are dependent on foreign goods. For whole product lines, there simply are no American manufacturers anymore. From electronic goods to clothing to steel, we don't make things anymore.
And American corporations are closing domestic factories to shift manufacturing overseas.
All of which fits perfectly into the world of free trade.
And all of which screws us royally.
Because independence is good and interdependence is bad. Because interdependence is the same as reliance and that is the opposite of self-reliance.
And history teaches that -- without exception -- prosperity and security require national self-reliance. Americans should eat American agricultural products and use American manufactured products and channel their income back into the economy that produced it -- the American economy. When a nation becomes reliant on foreign products -- as the United States clearly is -- its comfort and peace are held hostage by the producers of those foreign products.
If a nation cannot produce what it needs -- as the United States now cannot -- it is in a precarious position that weakens and enslaves it.
We will be weakened as we exchange our prosperity -- hard currency -- for foreign products, and we will be enslaved as our national policy inevitably must be tailored to preserve our access to foreign goods. These are truths which have been understood and implemented around the world for centuries. To abandon them now is to abandon national self-interest and to doom the United States to premature but certain decline.
And it is to bring the same fate to many nations of the world.
In developing countries, lingering poverty and delayed development are tied directly to a failure to be nationally self-reliant. When nations feed themselves, they do not starve. When they manufacture their own goods, they don't go without.
When they understand that their consumer dollars must be recycled into their own economies, they do not long linger in recession or unemployment.
Free trade serves a very few at the top of international corporations, but it does not serve the average American. Rather, it takes away his job and his nation's strength.
Certainly, the flow of goods and produce around the globe is needful and beneficial, but so is protection, and buttering your own bread first. The sense of national economic identity must not be lost, and neither should the commitment to protecting American prosperity -- even at the cost of limiting free trade.
Our first obligation is to feed, house, clothe and prosper American families. Every thing else comes second. That must be our attitude. Just as Mexico and every other nation must have the same attitude about its people and its economy.
Independence is good, interdependence is bad.
Self-reliance is the key to prosperity -- for individuals and nations.
Once again, suppose big guy tells little guy they had better not sell to you or else.
And we're the biggest big guy there is, and we make it clear that they'd BETTER sell to us or else.
[No, we'll merely sink every China-bound oil tanker with a genuine AMERICAN-MADE Mark 48 torpedo.]
Now keep in mind Big Guy probably has those torpedoes also.
No, they have inferior Russian knock-offs, and they don't have a navy. The biggest naval power in the world is the United States; everyone else is a very distant also-ran. DO try to pay attention to the details, son.
[ We have munitions factories already, son, they're just not being used right now] >Well, didn't I read we were going to purchase nuclear subs from some other country to give to Taiwan - because this other country makes our subs?
Let me guess: you got your education from the public school system.
The fact of the matter is that we only manufacture nuclear submarines, because that's all the US Navy uses; diesel-electric boats are made elsewhere. Our submarines are made here in the USA.
'Tis a far better idea to keep your mouth shut, and merely be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all remaining doubt.
Hey it's free trade and that is wonderful. We have replaced the gospel of common sense and self reliance with the gospel of free trade - even though there is nothing 'free' about it.
Fine. Live by the gospel of self-reliance--and take it to its logical conclusion. Don't post on Free Republic until you build your own PC and your own backbone connection to the Internet.
Instead of digging out your textbooks to try and impress us, why dont you listen for a while to someone whos already been there and done that?
Yes, the buggy whip analogy - why it doesn't fit into free trade. When the buggy whip manufacturers were put out of business by the auto manufacturers - the auto manufacturers were still here. The buggy whip guys could, in fact, learn a new trade and make autos. Now had the autos located in Somali, the buggy whip guys would have been in worse trouble. See the difference.
[Yet this is the message of the protectionists - entitlement. To me it is self-evident - the more you try to insulate people (workers) from the effects of change, the more protracted and difficult the transition.]
Personally, I don't want 'protection' - I just don't want to have to fight our government (you know those people who take our monies, make laws regarding most every aspect of our lives and enforce them with guns), as well as foreign competition. Foreign competition subsidized by our government with our tax dollars. I don't want to have to look around for another job when mine evaporates and find the jobs on the rung below (or beside or even above) me are filled with foreign workers - again subsidized by our government - no by us by forced extraction of our monies by our government.
Now I don't see a cowering populace demanding protection. I see people of a proud and successful country wanting the government to stay the heck out of the way and let us get on with making this country work. Just protect us from our enemies, close our borders, and get out the way. That is not what we have here. WE have nothing that can even be remotely called 'free' trade.
How about me?
Um... me. Self employed veteran of low skilled labor. You know how I got me a better job? I didn't pray that "the man" would be generous enough to hire me, I went out and created my own job. I found a service that was needed in my community, and I provided it. Why is economics 101 sooo hard for you to grasp? It really isn't that complicated.
Good statement, false, but good. It makes the next statement intop a laugh riot.
Just protect us from our enemies, close our borders, and get out the way.
Just protect us from competition is what what you mean. You want the government to stay the heck out of the way, EXCEPT, to keep me from buying and selling with whomever I choose. So much for freedom.
As to the subsidizing of people by government, THAT is the problem, address it and you will have addressed the correct problem.
I am offering the very realistic possibility that as the world becomes more volatile and a country like China with a huge population becomes richer and more powerful militarily - we are in trouble. I would really prefer that we were still making a few of the necessities of life. But you seem to think that never, ever will those nice foreigners want to harm us. Well, think again. That is exactly what they want. Not every country in the world bases its actions and politics on what produces more economic gain for his workers - in fact, very few, including this one. It is based on what gives the ones with the power the ability to keep that power. And believe me, that would include trying to bring down America. To believe otherwise is to believe in fairy tales.
When our purchasing power dwindles and our debts strangle us, we will no longer be a customer of the world - we will be a sitting duck.
Now you think if China refuses to sell to us, we can always get it from Zimbabwe, Somali, Haiti, or any number of very stable third world countries, right? We will be able to depend on those countries to forever supply our needs - right? Think again. It is not a big, beautiful American-loving world out there. There are other things than money driving many people today. It is just folly to put ourselves at their mercy.
I strongly disagree. Man cannot exist as an atomistic individual, such a concept flies in the face of reality and the most basic precepts of the Judeo-Christian worldview. "Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'" [Gen. 2:18 RSV]. On the contrary: a human individual can only exist a part of a human community, as Aristotle so aptly points out:
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts. Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state. [Politics, I, ii, translated by Benjamin Jowett)Therefore, we see that the idea of society as a mere "collection of individuals" goes against the traditional Western idea of man as a being defined by community; man outside of community is no man at all, but "is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer denounces... a lover of war... an isolated piece."
As to freedom and liberty, God gave us that. He chose to give us free will to accept or reject him. He could have done it any other way he chose. He made us in his image, that is to say, with free will.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Economic freedom is about property rights. They were bestowed by God in the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not steal" confers property rights. Government and rights are how we relate to each other, not to God. Freedom may be an illusion to you, but it is the best way for men to live on this world.
That may be the central tenet of your namesake's American civic religion, but that statement does not reflect the orthodox Christian belief. The Christian faith teaches that man is by nature free, but only free to choose which master he will serve; that man is always a slave of some master, and that it is only when he is a slave to God and God's righteousness [Rom. 6:18-22] that he is living in the way God intended. "...[H]e who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ." [1 Cor 7:22]. The freedom you speak of here is the illusory freedom of the Enlightenment, the Liberté offered by the serpent in the Garden, in which man becomes a law unto himself -- "like gods, knowing good and evil". This satanic lie -- that man can be his own god -- is at the heart of every trouble known to man since the world began. Freedom is not the ultimate good; holiness (= obedience to God) is. The ideal of individual freedom unlimited by concern for our fellowman -- the "virtue of selfishness' that lies at the core of laissez-faire capitalism -- is really nothing more than slavery, slavery to our own desires. "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another." [Titus 3:3]. A civilization where atomistic individualism is the core ethic is no society at all; a civilization where the goddess Liberty replaces the God of Love as the deity to whom all must bow may be said to be "free" in an economic sense, but it is certainly not free in a Christian or human sense.
Rights are a gift from God, what you do when you are enabled with them is to be taken up with him.
Modern man's obsession with his "rights" is another holdover from the so-called Enlightenment. Western, Christian civilization prior to the humanistic "renaissance" was a civilization where a man was defined by his duties (fealty to his family, his earthly masters, and his God) rather than by his rights (specified by written or social contract). In the centuries since then, the stable social order of feudal Christedom has been shattered into a warring jumble of "free men", each fighting an eternal Hobbsean battle of all-against-all in a vain effort to secure his so-called rights. I believe (and the Christian faith teaches) that we should each be less concerned with our self-centered rights and more concerned with our God-ordained duties, and I look forward to the day when Duty rather than Rights becomes the prime motif of our civilization.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
What world is this you live in?
You watch to much CNN. The world is not full of ANTI-AMERICAN hate mongers who will give their own lives just to see America suffer. The world is full of people, just like us that are just trying to make a living and provide for their families. This is the way it has always been. This is the way it will always be.
When my friend hired all his programmers in New Zealand (they work for half the wages american programmers do), they didn't think "Some AMERICAN is pushing his weight around, we must defeat them!". They thought "A company wants to hire me." They view it no different than if a company there in New Zealand hired them. A job is a job.
Stop watching so much CNN. The world is not out to get us.
A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Gentlemen:
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your -- what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice -- your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
excerpted from Bastiat: " Economic Sophisms".
It should also be noted that I think you misunderstood my comment about individuals and interpreted it to say that I think man should be alone or not part of a group. I meant no such thing. I will be happy to admit that I'm not the the most clear communicator.
My point is simply that man does not get judged (by God) by the behavior of some country he is in or group he is labled as part of. His relationship with the lord is defined by how he relates to him. That relationship will be judged as genuine by how he treats his fellow man. According to God's plan as revealed to us by Christ and the scriptures.
He allowed us free will and yet we somehow feel that we shouldn't allow each other the same even though he has given us his example.
You and I speak of a different kind of freedom. I refer to what I believe God meant for us to have in our relationships with other humans, you speak of a subserviance to God. They are both valid, but different.
Regards
Well, I cetainly can't dispute that. I'ver never had an original philosophical insight in my life! That's why I'm glad God sent Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle et al to do the mental heavy lifting. "I am but an egg."
I'm glad to see you so conversant in the science of philosophy, it is a feather in your cap.
Ha! If only you knew! I'm glad my lack of education doesn't show!
It doesn't however trump my points as I could certainly find so many others throughout history to back my views and we could get into a "dueling philosophers" battle. I have no inclination for that.
Fair enough, but please keep in mind that in an argument any evidence trumps no evidence. The only way I know how to have a reasoned debate on the issues is to make claims and try to support them by citing evidence.
It should also be noted that I think you misunderstood my comment about individuals and interpreted it to say that I think man should be alone or not part of a group. I meant no such thing. I will be happy to admit that I'm not the the most clear communicator.
If I misuderstood you, I apologize.
My point is simply that man does not get judged (by God) by the behavior of some country he is in or group he is labled as part of. His relationship with the lord is defined by how he relates to him. That relationship will be judged as genuine by how he treats his fellow man. According to God's plan as revealed to us by Christ and the scriptures. He allowed us free will and yet we somehow feel that we shouldn't allow each other the same even though he has given us his example. You and I speak of a different kind of freedom. I refer to what I believe God meant for us to have in our relationships with other humans, you speak of a subserviance to God. They are both valid, but different.
I disagree. I don't think it's possible to separate our duty toward God from our duty towards each other.
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'" [St. Matthew 25:31-40 RSV]
I believe that a free-market economy is the most efficient form of economy, but efficency is not the sine qua non of a moral society; concern for human beings is. An economy that sacrifices the dignity of human beings ton the altar of Mammon may perhaps be economically free, but it cannot be Christian. (Please note: I said nothing about the government handing out checks here.)
And, likewise, I think that a society with an unregulated press, open government, and as few regulations as possible is the most free society possible -- but freedom is not the sine qua non of a moral society; obedience to God and conformity to His natural law is. A political system that sacrifices the dignity of human beings on the altar of the goddess of Liberty may perhaps be politically free, but it can never be Christian. (Please note: I said nothing about the government forcing people to go to church here.)
In the end, I do not wish to live in a free society; I wish to live in a Christian society. In that desire I differ from most of my fellow Americans, my fellow Freepers, and from you -- and that39;s okay by me.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post.
No. Memory is a tricky thing. As George Will would say, 'you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts'. What you read is that in the latest Taiwan Defense Act Review the United States suggested that Taiwan buy some Dutch or German diesel subs. The United States doesn't buy or make diesel subs. We make and buy our own nuclear subs, but our navy doesn't want just anyone to have them. The Germans were caught off guard by the suggestion, and didn't want the bad relations with China that resulted when Taiwan purchased a pair of diesel subs from the Dutch previously.
Hey it's free trade and that is wonderful. We have replaced the gospel of common sense and self reliance with the gospel of free trade - even though there is nothing 'free' about it.
The 'free' in free trade refers to free from government restriction. With respect to government interference in trade there are two directions you can go. More freedom, or more government (essentially political) control. Which economies do best?
To promote the lowering of trade barriers, such as this latest proposal from the Bush administration: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41291-2002Nov26.html
why does the taxpayers have to pay that person unemployment for 2 years and train them for another job - no government interference here - just free trade.
Then what you're arguing against is government interference, not free trade. Don't let yourself be fooled just because the bureaucrats steal the title for their purposes...
That last paragraph tells me just about all I need to know.
But no, the people of the world are not out to get us. They are just poor schmucks trying to make a living just like we are. They have little or no control over what their greedy, power hungry politicians and governments do - just like us.
It isn't all the people that I fear - it is all the rulers, politicians and fanatics. Now couple that with the rampant greed that has no boundaries or allegiance and yes, I am frightened.
The quip about CNN was just too cute. I have no TV. Sorry - but some of us actually think for ourselves.
No, I said exactly what I meant - the government's job is to protect us from our enemies - not ingage in business or manipulating business. Read what I say - not what you want it to say. And yes, close the borders - it isn't the competition for my job I am concerned about - it is the competition for my tax dollars. I can only make somuch and forgive me if I think it should go first to my family and not be taken from me by force to entice foreigners here. Read what I say - don't interpret - I don't use big words -
[As to the subsidizing of people by government, THAT is the problem, address it and you will have addressed the correct problem. }
Now if you really read what I say - you will note that has been my premise all along. We do not have free trade - we have manipulated trade. Now that you have admitted that - why are you espousing the great things free trade has accomplished when we have not seen it in action.
And if the last two had agreed with the first, we would never have learned their names. So which one was right? That's why I don't want to get into dueling philosophers. And why quoting people's opinions isn't "evidence".
I disagree. I don't think it's possible to separate our duty toward God from our duty towards each other.
I said, "That relationship will be judged as genuine by how he treats his fellow man. According to God's plan as revealed to us by Christ and the scriptures."
The answer is in the statement.
I believe that a free-market economy is the most efficient form of economy, but efficency is not the sine qua non of a moral society; concern for human beings is. An economy that sacrifices the dignity of human beings ton the altar of Mammon may perhaps be economically free, but it cannot be Christian.
It is not only the most efficent, it is the most loving. "Love is the greatest of these".
A moral society is what we get when after the people do the right thing. A system that follows God's commandments is moral, capitalism is not moral or immoral. Only people can be moral or immoral. Not systems. People can embrace systems that violate rights and God's laws, that would make them immoral.
Capitalism is the system which allows the greatest opportunity to show care for your fellow man, the highest calling.
In the end, I do not wish to live in a free society; I wish to live in a Christian society. In that desire I differ from most of my fellow Americans, my fellow Freepers, and from you -- and that39;s okay by me.
I will fight to the death to keep you from changing this blessed country into a religious theocracy ruled by people who think they are the arbiter of God's will for the rest of us. History shows us what happens then, Taliban, Japanese theocracy in the thirties, etc. And I will do my part to see to it that this country embraces the values of Christian love as I understand them. But not at the point of a gun.
Are you for or against free trade? That is to say, freer than now. Forget about whether it is free now or not, which is a different question.
Less restrictions or more? Allowing me to trade freely with someone of another country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.