Examples like those illustrate why i lean libertarian with a small l rather than capital L. Capitalism works best within the bounds of a well designed rule of law framework- the structure and scope of the laws are debatable but the framework itself is not.
A good read on trade wars, protectionism, WTO etc.. The Silent Takeover : Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_8_1/002-1211728-5449655?v=glance&n=507846 "Widely acclaimed economist Noreena Hertz brilliantly reveals how corporations across the world manipulate and pressure governments by means both legal and illegal; how protest is becoming a more effective political weapon than the ballot-box; and how corporations are taking over from the state responsibility for everything from providing technology for schools to healthcare for the community. The Silent Takeover asks us to recognize the growing contradictions of a world divided between haves and have-nots, of gated communities next to ghettos, of extreme poverty and unbelievable wealth. In the face of these unacceptable extremes, Noreena Hertz outlines a new agenda to revitalize politics and renew democracy."
It's not about us the people, it's about a few group of men inside america who is working at crafting the ennemies of america and the whole world from inside america creating the beginning of world war III that Brezinski - right hand of rockfeller - predicted that it will be psychological and permanent war - that's exactly the theme of 1984 - how they do that ? They use "external threat" expression again from Brezinski ("America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" see http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html). Concrete example from Steven Emerson quoted in New York Times (see also http://www.meforum.org/article/353 ): "The Council on Foreign Relations [directed by Rockfeller], hardly a hotbed of radical thinking, has come under fire for its new monthly newsletter, Muslim Politics Report, a forum for a broad range of thought on Islam. 'It's a front for radical Islamic extremists attempting to legitimize their agenda and to put on a friendly face in the United States,' said Steven Emerson, a writer who believes the extremists represent a global Islamic conspiracy against America. The Council has denied his accusations, with Leslie Gelb, its president, saying: 'We consider the report a major contribution to let people know about a range of thinking by Islamic experts and leaders. It will stay. Period." The same theme is repeated in great detail in a later article entitled Friends of Hamas in the White House which appeared in the Wall St. Journal Wednesday, March 13, 1996 by Steven Emerson. Other example here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24336 "Religion is also an important molder of public opinion. For many years the Rockefeller Dynasty has bankrolled the Union Theological Seminary of New York, which has done so much to turn the clergy towards state socialism fascism, and to destroy the tenets of traditional Christianity. The highly influential seminary is known for turning out " Christian-Communists. The family's chief religious philanthropy for a number of years was the notorious Federal Council of Churches, which was pronounced by US Naval Intelligence in 1936 as one of the most dangerous, subversive organizations in the country. According to Naval Intelligence: It is a large radical -pacifist- organization, and probably represents 20,000,000 Protestants in the United States. However, its leadership consists of a small group which dictates its policies. It is always extremely active in any matters against national defense. In its many official pronouncements, the Federal Council attacked free enterprise, capitalism and the American way of life, and boldly advocated Socialism. In an official report in 1932,the Federal Council stated: " The Christian ideal calls for hearty support of a planned economic system.... It demands that cooperation shall replace competition as a fundamental method."
Friedman is used and misquoted by politicians. What said Friedman in the interview of him I posted already http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/friedman.php He said : "World trade depends on differences among countries, not similarities. Different countries are in different stages of development. It appropriate for them to have different patterns, different policies for ecology, labor standards, and so forth. " So he never denies the right of countries to have different patterns of development. In fact it is because of this that he is against so called "Free Trade" law which is a disguise enforcement upon the poor countries to adopt a model that is not suited for them and he said it also "to impose this on other countries that are not at that stage would be a disgraceful thing to do." And when he says âI have gradually come to the conclusion that antitrust laws do far more harm than good.â it is the same kind of reluctance that the laws which are supposed to defend the consumer against trusts - monopoly and oligopoly - are in fact used to re-enforce them because -as he said explicitely in an article - the monopolists will use this law against (small) competitors. It is also in this spirit that he is against Big Governement (he is not for NO governement at all he said government is usefull !) because Big governement is used by these monopolists. And he gave a clear illustration : "Nobody ever goes up to Congress and says, 'Look, vote me a big bonanza of $100,000 because I'm a good man and I deserve $100,000 out of the public purse.' No, he says, 'You should subsidize X, Y, and Z because the poor people in the slums will be benefited by it.' So, you have two classes of people: the selfish special interests on the one hand, and the so-called do-gooders on the other. These do-gooders are generally sincere people, but they invariably end up being the unwitting front men for private interests they would never knowingly support. So he is just applying REALITY CONTRAINSTS that the ones the laws are supposed to fight are the ones who are the MAKERS of these laws so it is silly to give them the hammer to harm the people - especially the poors they pretext to help - with these laws !
And this "conspiracy against the public" is nothing new since you can read it textually in the The Wealth of Nations from Adam Smith father of free market: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be enforceable, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary." And that's the problem today: the laws have been made to render them [MONOPOLY] necessary. And what Friedman insists upon is that this can and have happen only with the complicity of a Big Government that's why he is against such kind of government and so socialist government, because unfortunately, such government in appearance defend the poor people, but they above all defend the interests of the Big Corporates willingly or even unwillingly when they are manipulated through mass opinion themselves driven by medias. And who control the medias ?
Europe is in first rank to use socialism as a road to build the future facist Super State named today European Union (see below an article from the London Daily Mail) and there is the same process that is waiting United States though so called "Free Trade" Law like Nafta and now WTO which prevents US government - as well as any other government - to be sovereign but submitted to the will of foreign buraucrats that are not even elected by the citizens. The same for the asian block probably since China has joined the OMC that is to say the 3 super blocks described in Orwell's 1984 are just beginning to emerge - although they are late in their agenda since we are already in 2004 but should we complain haha ! London Daily Mail The Euro Divide Hits No 10 Man The Prime Minister's chief of staff was embroiled in a political row last night after his journalist wife attacked Tony Blair's "fundamentally dishonest" policy on Europe. Jonathan Powell, Mr. Blair's right-hand man in Downing Street, found himself torn between loyalty to his boss and loyalty to his wife, Sarah Helm. In a hard-hitting newspaper article, Miss Helm launched an attack on the Government's entire EU stance. She accused Mr. Blair of being part of a major deception because he knows that a "super-state is in the making", but refuses to admit it. The Prime Minister's spokesman took the unprecedented step of intervening between man and wife, stating bluntly that Mr. Powell does not agree with Miss Helm. The spokesman said Mr.`Powell did not share the views of his brother Sir Charles Powell, who was Margaret Thatcher's private secretary and drafted the Bruges speech in which she spoke out against further European integration. The spokesman went on: "Neither does he share the views of his wife. She is a journalist and he is the Prime Minister's chief of staff." It was easy to see why Number 10 was so anxious to distance the Prime Minister from the article. Miss Helm, an expert on EU politics, pulled no punches in exposing the real agenda taking shape in Brussels. She said that there were only two people telling the truth - German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who says Europe must have its own government and president and Yorkshire millionaire Paul Sykes, who has pledged to use his fortune to fight a European federal state. "Meanwhile Tony Blair, Lionel Jospin of France, Chancellor Schroeder of Germany, and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, maintain a position which is fundamentally dishonest". Miss Helm went on. "They pretend federalism is no longer on the European agenda and attempt to convince their voters that the European Union can be governed by a system of loose "intergovernmental co-operation" which, they claim, is no threat to national sovereignty." "But they all know a super-state is in the making because they are all taking part in its construction." "Even those who are hesitating - like Blair - know they cannot resist the momentum for long." She turned the knife by saying Mr. Blair and other leaders "know their electorates have become nervous about more integration so they are leading their people blindfold down the road."
Can also find "A Brave New World" from Aldous Huxley here: http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/brave_new_world/ I was obliged to read this book at college. I hated all books the teachers obliged to read especially those "intellectual" books where you get a headache . I think these kind of books shouldn't be for too young because at that age they are incapable of understanding.
ours is a world short of perfection. we do the best we can with what we have. the marketplace of ideas is essential to this process, as are morality and rule of law. we are able to effect our system. Oh, yes we are. to deny it is concede to slavery, and take up the lot of the oppressor.
Fri November 28, 2003 04:29 AM ET GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has been given nine more days to abide by a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that its steel import duties are illegal, postponing the threat of retaliatory sanctions, trade officials said on Friday. WTO states had been due to meet on Monday to rubber-stamp the verdict of the trade body's highest court upholding the complaint of the European Union, Japan, China, Brazil and a number of other countries against the duties. The meeting will now be held on December 10. The EU has said that it is ready to hit Washington with some $2.2 billion in sanctions within five days of the WTO's approving the court ruling, if the duties are not removed. "If the delay allows the United States time to withdraw the protectionist measures, that is better for everybody," said Fabian Delcros, a spokesman for the EU in Geneva. The decision to postpone came at the request of the United States, which said that it had not been expecting the meeting to take place before December 10, the legal deadline for WTO states to ratify the court decision. But it comes at a time when there are mounting signs from Washington that the Bush administration is preparing to scrap or at least roll back the tariffs which were imposed in 2002 to help the country's struggling steel industry.