Replies

"How so?"

By definition.

"Free how?"

Free to use one's money as one wishes, to employ whom one wishes, to buy from and sell to whom one wishes. That's freedom. Freedom, in my view, is freedom from government. Your view of freedom, in which you have freedom to buy products that are not competitive in the free market, is a view of freedom that requires, at some level, government coercion, direction and supervision of its citizens. As does any form of government guaranteed standards of living.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a leftist artist who complained our country was not free since he was not free to follow his dream of being a full time artist. In other words, his art was not competitive, so for him to be "free," he required government to make it so.

"Free trade organisations and treaties are the stepping stones to world government."

I don't recognize the validity of the above statement. If there were one government, and it was one dedicated to freedom, one can imagine that it would allow a free market. OTOH, if it were operated as are most of the world's governments, it would be the opposite, based at some level on Central Planning.

"Free trade organisations and treaties are the stepping stones to world government."

Democrats don't understand the dynamic impact of taxes on the economy, either, so it must not happen.

How do tariffs enacted by congress in the US fall under your definition of central planning for world government? I thought tariffs were isolationist, protectionist? (In fact, they are and that is what is good about them.)

Democrats aren't the only herd animals.

I don't recognize the validity of the above statement

Then you should go on to the US Trade Representative's website and read some of the speeches he's giving in South America and around the world. Then go an read the mission statements and the "organizing principles" of the supranational agencies that were created to centrally manage global trade.

Intra-American Dialog

Participants discussed CAFTA as one of the first real tests of trade promotion or "fast track" authority, passed in 2002. A CAFTA accord is an important step in hemispheric integration as it goes beyond the bilateral level to a multilateral approach.

http://www.iadialog.org/summaries/feb04/cmwg.asp

A lunch discussion on U.S. global trade policy featured Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier and former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills. Participants noted that the U.S. government views bilateral free trade agreements - such as the U.S.-Chile agreement, NAFTA and CAFTA - as stepping stones to hemispheric integration. Furthermore, the U.S. considers Europe's negotiations with Mercosur as complementary to its own efforts.

http://www.iadialog.org/summaries/march04/forum.asp

What does hemipsheric integration mean in the context of this discussion? It means dissovling sovereign borders and irrevocably integrating nations economically, socially and civilly(as in "civil government"). It means creating a "trade bloc" in the style of the EU, which if you've been paying attention has gone from a simple "tariff lowering system" to a fully formed association of soviet states attempting to pass a constitution to create the supranational government to rule over all.

The steps taken in this hemisphere with the "free trade" agreements that everyone champions, are identical to the creation of the soviet states of Europe. When I say soviet, I mean it, because the supranational government is a council system like the soviet union, many of the articles in the EU constitution mirror in a remarkable way the final constitution of the USSR.