Replies

Are you suggesting that NAFTA was equivalent to market based free trade principles and that anyone who is critical of it is against capitalism? From what I have seen of NAFTA, it has lots of government regulation and intervention (3 governments, to be exact) in everything from controlling trade, labor, the environment and monetary policies. IMO, these treaties that supercede United States law will be the demise of our nation.

Not at all, Calcowgirl. But your point, which is plainly a conservative one--- that NAFTA does not represent actual free trade because it is not FREE enough is exactly the opposite of those such as Nader and Buchanan who say Nafta does not represent free trade because it is not FAIR enough.

The latter are trying to institute what Thomas Sowell calls "Cosmic Justice"--- justice that is based on fairness of results rather than process.

But as I'm sure you know, the government regulation and intervention controlling trade, labor, the environment was largely a sop to anti-free trade socialist forces within the United States in particular such as the unions, Democrats and the environmentalist lobby. The AFL-CIO in particluar protested that NAFTA needed to make Mexico have "adequate protection for labor rights, worker health and safety or the environment".

I agree that the more regulation NAFTA includes, the more complex it is, the less it should be considered a genuine free trade agreement. But giving in unions, Democrats, etc. on some of these issues is sometimes needed to increase freedom of trade.

I think of this as analogous to the partial privatization of Social Security or the idea of introducing school vouchers. Both would bring the United States more in line with its free market principles, but neither are ideal and in the short term would represent an expansion of governemnt's size if not its power. But I think both are eminently justified, as proven by the opposition of Teacher's unions.

Forcing other nations to raise their taxes, creating supranational authorities-- all of this in so far as it occurs constitutes EU style economic harmonization-- what John Fonte calls transnational progressivism--- rather than freeing up the creative and productive power of international economic competition, which is what real free trade agreements do.

So, anyway, the extent I take any issue with your criticisms of NAFTA at all are only in degree. To me, your criticisms are eminently conservative, unlike those of Dobbs, Buchanan and Nader, who are against free trade in principle. But Buchanan and Dobbs (unlike you) give those who favor EU style supranational harmonization because it enables the latter to falsely present themselves as representing the free trade side against the economic isolationists.

We need to push free trade, push supranational laws that supercede the Constitution out of any free trade agreements, and be on the look out for treaties like the Law of the Sea treaty http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-12-04.html that trump our sovereignty.

Sorry, I meant to say at the end

"But Buchanan and Dobbs (unlike you) give those who favor EU style supranational harmonization a rhetorical advantage because it enables the latter to falsely present themselves as representing the free trade side against the economic isolationists."

We need to push free trade

For America to maintain its system of free enterprise, we cannot push "free trade". You cannot have "free trade" and not have supranational law. You cannot have "free trade" and a free country at the same time.

Thanks for the response. I agree with some of what you posted, but disagree with others. I'm not familiar with the detailed reasoning of either Dobbs or Buchanan, but I can see where deeming NAFTA not "Fair" is perfectly consistent with conservative principles. You're probably aware that the U.S. agreed to drop or phase out tariffs on their products but allowed Mexico to continue tariffs for many years. I don't think the issue is so much about "Fair Trade" as much as a "Fair Agreement". If I give you a dollar for 10 nickles is that Fair?

A couple of other things... You wrote:

But giving in unions, Democrats, etc. on some of these issues is sometimes needed to increase freedom of trade.

I disagree. See tagline. It diminishes out sovereignty and freedom in the name of "free trade". New requirements placed on USA businesses, and jurisdiction of foreign courts or other quasi-governmental bodies is not a positive step, IMO.

And...

But I think both are eminently justified, as proven by the opposition of Teacher's unions.

I don't see these issues as two dimensional. Opposition by one group does not rise to the level of "proof" in my estimation.