>Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >It brings us more beuracracy, more laws, and more regulations AND it >is unconstitutional. That is NOT what we need to be more free and in >fact moves us in the opposite direction that we should be headed in. >I think you are confusing the name of the act with what it actually >does.
No, I think you're confusing detail with oppression, and lack of perfection with badness. Why do you think all the libertarian think tanks favor the agreements? Did they just read wrong? > To >move torwards a free economy all we need is for the government to get >out of our way, not create an international agency to manage our 'free >trade'. Sure, that would work, but not enough people WANT that. But they DO support making trade SOMEWHAT freer. You'd rather spurn their advances? You'd rather go without eating than order what they'll serve you, just because your favorite isn't on the menu? Not only that, but the more trade is allowed, the more likely actual free trade will be offered at some future time. Sourly By Inert I, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
