On 8/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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,
You can sum up free trade very simply. Government will not get in the way of willing parties from seperate countries from trading. The next 999.999 pages of the document you call details are not talking about how free we will be. For the most part they are talking about exceptions. > and lack of perfection > with badness. Have you noticed a lack of discussion regarding creating free trade with mexico and Canada in the last decade? Why do you think that is? Have you tried bringing it up with people in the last ten years? what is their response? > Why do you think all the libertarian think tanks favor the > agreements? Did they just read wrong? They don't. Just the ones that you posted do. The first one i checked not on your list www.fff.org does not. http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1299x.asp > > 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? No. But I am not willing to ignore the constitution (which sets bad precedents) and support 1000 page documents and call it Free Trade. Once you do that you have lost. Basically we have unfree trade so the people that are opposed to it are happy and we are calling it free trade so the people that support free trade are content. When true free trade supporters try to argue for true free trade, they are dismissed easily by the populace who all now beleive we have free trade. > Not only that, but the more trade is allowed, the more likely actual free > trade will be offered at some future time. If one beleive it will ever be discussed again. I hoghly doubt it since as far as republicans are concerned they think they have it already and as far as democrats are concerned they only want to move in the opposite direction. Where is the push for freer trade going to come from? > 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 > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
