10 Steps to Save America!

[Fiannan]

9) No membership in anti-US, unelected, world governing bodies (UN, NATO...).

Then who would operate the sex trade in Bosnia and Kosovo and various parts of Africa?

[JohnBirchSociety]

1) The founding fathers also said okay to slavery and the attempts at genocide and driving the Native Americans form their ancestral land and means of supporting themselves. However, they were wise enough to realize that they may not have all the needed answers moving forward so they envisioned and provided for an Amendment process. It almost appears that you really do not agree completely with our founding Fathers – I am surprised you tried this argument.

2) No government can exist without taxes and the power to collect them. So you feel that in order to vote (be a 1st class citizen) it should be required that everyone pay a flat non graduated fee of say $100,000 per year? Since I could afford to buy my citizenship it may sound appealing but I completely reject such thinking. Can you think of any fair tax method that is not graduated? Even the property tax proposed by Thomas Jefferson (a founding father) required more tax from those that owned more property. I am not sure you have clearly thought this through.

3) How do secret political deals behind closed doors bring us closer to democracy? The 17 amendment requires the vote of the people. This looks like a clear case of democracy winning out to me.

4) I think a free people can decide what services and requirements a government must provide. Are you against free public education? I think if people want to pass laws that say that every community must supply clean drinkable water – or police protection or whatever – I believe they have the right to do so. I do not believe they have the right to say some segment of the population can be denied the services necessary to exist in our society.

5) Immigration laws have been in place since our government was established. The problem is not with illegal immigrants coming into our country – the problem is with citizens that assist them. We need new laws to punish citizens that assist illegal immigration that include public officials that do not enforce the law.

6) I have free health care and I can afford to pay for my health care. Why should someone that needs care (including emergency) be denied and left to die because they cannot pay right now? The problem with health care is not paying for the poor. The problem is the continuing sky rocketing cost of malpractice that must be paid by competent health care providers. The government must address this problem.

7) There are many ways the Federal Government funds public education. You need to understand these methods. I do not care where the funds come from but I believe every community should have complete control over subject matter and methods of teaching. It may shock you but I think religion should be taught in public and private schools as a requirement. I think anyone that would teach history without religion is nuts and does not understands one of the most important elements necessary in understanding history.

8) Your prejudice against other countries is completely uncalled for. Our country could not have obtained freedom without help from other countries. I do not think you understand what other countries provide. I cannot believe that you do not want to have any kind of an agreement with Mexico or Canada as to where the border is. I would like to know where you think we should get rubber from? Without rubber our economy would fail and if a small country that provides us with rubber was overrun by our enemies that we should not help them. I for one do not want to live in the dark ages.

9) I am very confused with your ideas here. For example – the UN. You are very animate that we not concern ourselves with anything that goes on beyond our borders. What anti US policy does the UN foster that takes place exclusively within the borders of the USA? This appears to me to be a double standard in your thinking.

10) I do not believe that a thermal nuclear war is eminent or unavoidable. I do believe that if your concept of refusal to do anything to avoid it until it reaches our territory was indeed adopted that a thermal nuclear war would be both eminent and unavoidable.

BTW – thank you to all that allow me to express my opinion and that read and consider these things. I like the concept of an open forum where thought can be expressed. I have learned in the past that when I have expressed my thoughts that many time I have learned from those that oppose my thinking that I do not always agree with my own thinking when I think deeply about what I have been thinking.

The Traveler

1) The Founders knew that in order to have a chance at getting rid of slavery, etc., there had to be established a strong Union. It was a sad, but necessary compromise.

2) I've said nothing about the absence of taxation. The 16th Amendment may not have been passed correctly, to begin with. Secondly, we were just fine without it. The size of the Federal Government was greatly constrained to its' appropriate functions, without it. It is Communistic. We don't need a Graduated Income Tax. What we need is a properly constrained Federal Government that derives its' necessary revenue from Constitutionally appropriate means.

3) The Founders established a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. They had the Senators selected by the State Legislatures as a filter from democracy. Also, this more fully insures that the States have a stronger control of the Federal will. The removal of this filter has had enormous negative impact upon the United States.

4) I support the proper function of government in maintaining the "general welfare" (roads, water-systems, etc.). The proper function does not extend to direct disbursement of funds to an individual citizen from another citizen, by force of government. That is what I am against. It is theft. It is wrong.

5) If the enormous benefits of the Social Services in the United States continue, no amount of enforcement will prevail because people are frankly willing to DIE to get here. Remove the incentives (free social services), and that would greatly lessen the problem. Obviously, enforce the laws we have, and punish those who break them.

6) You've marked probably the only exception that I believe is morally correct on this matter. Emergency, life-saving care, ought not be denied to any person. That is a matter of law, and should remain as such. Other than that, I can't think of an appropriate exception.

7) Having been elected to the local school board Title X committee (the one that determines how all federal funding will be spent), and appointed by that board to the position of Chairman, I am very much aware of the money that is being spent on Public Education. I am against all Federal involvement in education. Segregation is a human rights issue, and is an appropriate function of the Federal government to be against. Federal funding of Public Education is a Marxist Communist tenet and is wrong. Schools ought to be funded and supervised at the most local level possible. In some instances this may be at a State level. In most cases it would be at a community level.

8) I'm not prejudice against other countries. I want free trade with all nations. Unlimited, free trade. Real free trade. No prejudice at all. That trade does not require any super-national agreements. As to our border, it is where we say it is, by force, if necessary. That has been the case through all of human history, entangling alliances have done nothing to change this.

9) UN Headquarters is in the United States. Hmmm?

10) We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Discourse is good. Thanks.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Well, that would certainly cut the voter roles in the family housing sections over at BYU. Many students are on at least WIC programs and many others are on food stamps. I really don't mind this since none are planning on being "lifers" on the welfare roles but only need help now to be able to study and also maintain their families.

Besides, food stamps are merely a form of government farm subsidy.

My opinion on WIC is that it is okay. I like the idea of feeding Moms and young kids. It is a slippery slope to get on, though...

HOWEVER, it is not okay from a Constitutional standpoint. Taking wealth from individuals and directly disbursing to others is theft. It is plunder. It is Socialism. It is wrong.

[Hemidakota]

And women: Eleanor Roosevelt was part of the six-member, and first US, delegation to the UN. She served from 1945 to 1952.

She fought tirelessly for human rights for all people, and was completely disgusted with the Soviet Union, as it vetoed any progressive proposal. Stalin had promised cooperation with the the US and the UN, and of course, did nothing of the kind. He could not have cared less about anyone's human rights.

She later wrote how naive she was, thinking governments really wanted to give their people the best quality of life possible, within their parameters. When she discovered this was not true, her disappointment, and sadness, was profound.

Elphaba

Thanks Elpha...tidbits like this that helps us to understand others involvement with those brothers and sisters of lesser fortunes of life. Now, too bad her personal life was not in order.

[Hemidakota]

Touche, Elphie. I don't think anyone can argue that Eleanor Roosevelt was not a great person.

Amend my statement to 'Great men and women'.

Outside appearances to the world then yes. But as time evolves and close members of the cabinet start to talk after they are out of office, about events behind close doors, in most cases, we begin to realize that they are more fallible than those of who considered unknown to the world but hold a great weight of contribution to this earth.

[Fiannan]

My opinion on WIC is that it is okay. I like the idea of feeding Moms and young kids. It is a slippery slope to get on, though...

HOWEVER, it is not okay from a Constitutional standpoint. Taking wealth from individuals and directly disbursing to others is theft. It is plunder. It is Socialism. It is wrong.

I agree with you. WIC and Food Stamps are basically creating a market for our farm goods -- these products, if not purchased, would be destroyed. They are not wealth re-distributin.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I agree with you. WIC and Food Stamps are basically creating a market for our farm goods -- these products, if not purchased, would be destroyed. They are not wealth re-distributin.

Come again? How are they not a redistribution of wealth?

The taxpayer (me) pays tax at the point of a gun (government force) and that tax is given directly to another. That is theft. That is the definition of a redistribution of wealth. It is the definition of Communism.

The proper function of government is very simple to define. The protection of property rights is the proper function of government. It has not rightful place in other aspect of society.

[WANDERER]

The problem that you've missed on this, is that if those who receive direct government (disbursed directly to them, not things like roads / millitary, etc.) assistance can vote for more of the same (and the record shows they do exactly that) we will go broke. Politicians pander to them.

Actually I haven't missed this. So in your opinion, Hipanics, immigrants and poor people crash the economy. I know it sounds like good sense to not overdo the welfare...people who can't afford houses cannot afford houses and all that.... and we're all leaning a little towards regulation at the moment that will prevent economic excesses but....

In Germany, following the depression, they thought it was the Jewish.

I was reading an article about this the other day in how people respond to economic failure and what to expect in terms of opinion swings and what people are saying. Expect minority groups to get the global flak.

I hope not.

You do realise that politicians are going to pander to those that can vote...the wealthy will get tax breaks that will look ridiculous.

An interesting point of view: stimulus payments at the moment in Oz are being discussed in terms of giving it to pensioners welfare payments. Why? Because they aren't going to spend on expensive foreign imports or investments...in order to stimulate the economy...money has to go to the poor who will stimulate the local economy...redistribution of taxes in a way that is crucial to the health of the country. What more handouts to fix the problem?....YEP *cheesy grin*.

Economic theory is being rewritten.

We have responsible triple a rating banks in Oz and a government with a surplus...did that protect us....NOPE. Being responsible and running a tight monetary policy will not save you when the dirt hits the fan. We did the unthinkable: we guaranteed everyone's bank deposit...didn't matter how much...NO LIMIT...for three whole years. That puts the triple A rating banks on the same competition level as all the other banks...they can now take risks at levels we don't want beyond three years. Okay...apparently they weren't as triple A as they appeared...some linkage to the Lemahan fallout...some hidden problems there. Rudd said it was because other nations made guarantees...he's talking it up.

Dire times require big bouncy cushions. Good times require regulation. It's not that I think you are totally off base...but proactive rather than reactive is better. The response is to do exactly the opposite. This doesn't work ....apparently...stay tuned to see if going hard in either direction is entirely successful...I'm not so sure.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Tamrajh

[JohnBirchSociety]

The problem that you've missed on this, is that if those who receive direct government (disbursed directly to them, not things like roads / millitary, etc.) assistance can vote for more of the same (and the record shows they do exactly that) we will go broke. Politicians pander to them.

Actually I haven't missed this. So in your opinion, Hipanics, immigrants and poor people crash the economy. I know it sounds like good sense to not overdo the welfare...people who can't afford houses cannot afford houses and all that.... and we're all leaning a little towards regulation at the moment that will prevent economic excesses but....

In Germany, following the depression, they thought it was the Jewish.

I was reading an article about this the other day in how people respond to economic failure and what to expect in terms of opinion swings and what people are saying. Expect minority groups to get the global flak.

I hope not.

You do realise that politicians are going to pander to those that can vote...the wealthy will get tax breaks that will look ridiculous.

An interesting point of view: stimulus payments at the moment in Oz are being discussed in terms of giving it to pensioners welfare payments. Why? Because they aren't going to spend on expensive foreign imports or investments...in order to stimulate the economy...money has to go to the poor who will stimulate the local economy...redistribution of taxes in a way that is crucial to the health of the country. What more handouts to fix the problem?....YEP *cheesy grin*.

Economic theory is being rewritten.

We have responsible triple a rating banks in Oz and a government with a surplus...did that protect us....NOPE. Being responsible and running a tight monetary policy will not save you when the dirt hits the fan. We did the unthinkable: we guaranteed everyone's bank deposit...didn't matter how much...NO LIMIT...for three whole years. That puts the triple A rating banks on the same competition level as all the other banks...they can now take risks at levels we don't want beyond three years. Okay...apparently they weren't as triple A as they appeared...some linkage to the Lemahan fallout...some hidden problems there. Rudd said it was because other nations made guarantees...he's talking it up.

Dire times require big bouncy cushions. Good times require regulation. It's not that I think you are totally off base...but proactive rather than reactive is better. The response is to do exactly the opposite. This doesn't work ....apparently...stay tuned to see if going hard in either direction is entirely successful...I'm not so sure.

I have really no idea what your clips were about, but I'll take a stab at it:

Socialism is wrong. It is government sponsored theft, and it is wrong. Period. End of story.

[Traveler]

JBS:

The problem with the list of 10 is that this discussion is becoming too broad. To simplify things I will begin to talk about foreign and domestic policies.

Foreign policies: It is clear that the founding fathers intended that our government establish relationships (including treaties, trade and ambassadors) with other countries. If you are familiar with the constitution the founding fathers spelled out in Article II section 2 that the executive branch (president) will have power to appoint ambassadors and sign treaties – this includes trade agreements.

You may not like specific agreements that have been made but to say we should not have any agreements is contrary to the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. If you believe in the Constitution and the founding fathers you must agree with me that it is necessary to have treaties and ambassadors.

I offered a specific example so I will ask you again – How do you think we should obtain rubber? Yes this is a trick question - because rubber cannot be obtained within the territory of the USA. And without rubber we could not use electricity or gasoline.

Domestic policies: In particular taxes – The founding fathers did intend that the federal government have power to collect taxes. This is spelled out in Article I section 8.

When the constitution was written by our founding fathers the country’s economy was based on an agrarian society. 90% of the population worked the land to provide food. Taxes were based on property and what that property provided. Today more than 90% of the population works outside of agrarian pursuits. If you are familiar with the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers you would know that it was intended that any taxes laid must be equal in proportions to population according to the census.

According to your posts 90% percent of the population could not be taxed and no one that I know that has studied the constitution would say that was the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution. I cannot think of any better more distributed tax in our society than the income tax. Since you have not proposed any other tax – I assume that you do not know of another one ether. This I find ironic because you are adamant that those that do not pay tax and receive “free” handouts from the government should not vote.

So I ask – other than income taxes, do you pay any federal tax – do you think you should vote? Do you think you should live free off of someone else’s requirement to pay taxes? Is this why you do not what income tax?

The Traveler

[a-train]

Traveler,

I thank your for bringing the scope of the thread down to a workable scale

On the topic of foreign policy and more specifically trade agreements such as NAFTA, could you explain your philosophy that would form the basis of accepting, rejecting, or formulating treaties, especially trade agreements? Would you, for example, find it acceptable for North America to have a continental private central banking system that independently regulated all monetary policy within the trade bloc via a continental currency such as the European Euro? Why or why not?

Would you advocate a common continental tariff system for North America? Why or why not?

Would you be pleased if the U.S. unilaterally dropped all tariffs with a given nation that continued to place high tariffs on U.S. products? Why or why not?

My questions are not so much to debate the particular points, but to talk more about the foundation for answering such questions.

-a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

JBS:

The problem with the list of 10 is that this discussion is becoming too broad. To simplify things I will begin to talk about foreign and domestic policies.

Foreign policies: It is clear that the founding fathers intended that our government establish relationships (including treaties, trade and ambassadors) with other countries. If you are familiar with the constitution the founding fathers spelled out in Article II section 2 that the executive branch (president) will have power to appoint ambassadors and sign treaties – this includes trade agreements.

You may not like specific agreements that have been made but to say we should not have any agreements is contrary to the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. If you believe in the Constitution and the founding fathers you must agree with me that it is necessary to have treaties and ambassadors.

I offered a specific example so I will ask you again – How do you think we should obtain rubber? Yes this is a trick question - because rubber cannot be obtained within the territory of the USA. And without rubber we could not use electricity or gasoline.

Domestic policies: In particular taxes – The founding fathers did intend that the federal government have power to collect taxes. This is spelled out in Article I section 8.

When the constitution was written by our founding fathers the country’s economy was based on an agrarian society. 90% of the population worked the land to provide food. Taxes were based on property and what that property provided. Today more than 90% of the population works outside of agrarian pursuits. If you are familiar with the constitution and the intent of the founding fathers you would know that it was intended that any taxes laid must be equal in proportions to population according to the census.

According to your posts 90% percent of the population could not be taxed and no one that I know that has studied the constitution would say that was the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution. I cannot think of any better more distributed tax in our society than the income tax. Since you have not proposed any other tax – I assume that you do not know of another one ether. This I find ironic because you are adamant that those that do not pay tax and receive “free” handouts from the government should not vote.

So I ask – other than income taxes, do you pay any federal tax – do you think you should vote? Do you think you should live free off of someone else’s requirement to pay taxes? Is this why you do not what income tax?

The Traveler

1) On foreign policy. By entangling alliances I mean those that would compel us to military action on behalf of another nation.

I believe in free trade, and agreements that actually facilitate those activities. I believe in diplomatic relations with all nations. We ought not have any foe's if we'd be open with all nations.

Rubber, and all other goods not indigenous to the United States we would purchase in a free market environment.

Treaties that would compel us to enter into conflicts I am against. That is what George Washington was warning us about in his farewell address.

Trade agreements that would step outside the sovereignty of the United States (dictate prices, labor, etc.) are contrary to the intent of the framers.

2) The graduated income tax is a central tenet of Marxist Communism. That alone should give pause to any American.

Besides that, the Federal Government was able to function quite well (and withing its' Constitutional mandates) WITHOUT an income tax. Prior to the income tax amendment (which may not have been properly ratified), the Federal Government received the bulk of its' revenue from excise taxes on imports. They were not burdensome.

I appreciate bring the discussion back to a narrow focus. One of the reasons I was a bit broad in scope on my opening comments was to not constrain the discussion. But I agree that a more specific approach is now a good idea. Thanks.

[WANDERER]

I have really no idea what your clips were about, but I'll take a stab at it:

Socialism is wrong. It is government sponsored theft, and it is wrong. Period. End of story.

Socialism, like Capitalism, is not always a strict definition. You can easily divert from either quite generously while still retaining the spirit of the economic system. They can easily be meshed with one another as well, as has been shown within many Democracies throughout the world. Characterizing socialism as nothing more than a police state with redistribution of wealth under coercion is completely dishonest. It would be like saying that Capitalism can never be anything more than a free market with no regulation or else it's not capitalism.

Arguing for socialized medicine doesn't suddenly make one a socialist by the strict definition of the word. I think that the state should socialize those areas that need socialization to maintain the integrity and cohesiveness of the society, and where it will not be inefficient or profligate. A government that provides value for money invested is a capitalist idea. The problem is deciding on what the services are that provide value for the money you have invested via taxes in the business of government...if you disagree then I guess you could see it as socialistic or stealing money from your pocket. Others may disagree with that viewpoint.

[a-train]

I think that the state should socialize those areas that need socialization to maintain the integrity and cohesiveness of the society, and where it will not be inefficient or profligate.

What does "the integrity and cohesiveness of the society" mean?

-a-train

[FunkyTown]

I have really no idea what your clips were about, but I'll take a stab at it:

Socialism is wrong. It is government sponsored theft, and it is wrong. Period. End of story.

Uncontrolled Capitalism is wrong. It is governmentally mandated economic slavery. Period. End of story.

See how I can use the same argument?

PS: The United Order was very different from Communism and was instead a form of the socialism you hate so much. Who do I believe? You or Brigham Young. Tough one... John Birch Society... Brigham Young.... John Birch Society... Brigham Young.

No, no. That was unfair. I'm clearly venting because you seem to think that a government mandate to help the poor and unfortunate equals satanic practice. It's absurd. Does Communism work? No. People are too selfish to make a system like that work. However, aspects of socialism are -required- for a righteous society to protect the poor and unfortunate from those who would use and abuse them. I am more than happy to point out several horrendous abuses unrestricted Capitalism has caused that resulted in Capitalism being regulated -because everyone recognized these abuses were wrong-.

Socialism is a government mandated morality. If you had said "I don't believe you can mandate morality", I would have disagreed and said that it's required that certain things be mandated. I wouldn't have disagreed so vocally. But your hatred of socialism is simply wrong and ignorant.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

I thank your for bringing the scope of the thread down to a workable scale

On the topic of foreign policy and more specifically trade agreements such as NAFTA, could you explain your philosophy that would form the basis of accepting, rejecting, or formulating treaties, especially trade agreements? Would you, for example, find it acceptable for North America to have a continental private central banking system that independently regulated all monetary policy within the trade bloc via a continental currency such as the European Euro? Why or why not?

Would you advocate a common continental tariff system for North America? Why or why not?

Would you be pleased if the U.S. unilaterally dropped all tariffs with a given nation that continued to place high tariffs on U.S. products? Why or why not?

My questions are not so much to debate the particular points, but to talk more about the foundation for answering such questions.

-a-train

a-train: You have asked some very deep questions that I may not be able to answer with ease on a forum. Some thoughts - I believe that every trade agreement should be looked at based on many factors – all of which need to make sense to both countries. There needs to be open public discussions so that the citizens of the USA know what is going on as to what is being considered and what is being rejected and by who. I believe NAFTA has a butt load of problems because of economic, political and social differences that are not being addressed.

I do favor free trade but to have free trade, borders must be relatively open and working environments must be somewhat similar or respected and accepted. For example, I think all the NAFTA concepts work well with Canada but not Mexico. I believe that before Mexico be allowed to enter into such an agreement with the USA that they need to change their corrupt internal working environment and change their attitude about their workers coming to the USA and ignoring our laws and culture from driving without insurance to demanding their children do not speak English at school.

Do not take me wrong. Over the last 20 years Mexico (and other Latin countries – excluding Cuba and other) have made excellent strides and we should be changing our attitudes with them but there is a world of difference in dealing with Canada than with Mexico or Japan verses Mexico.

I would like to see developments with a Pacific Rim alliance – But we must be very careful about China. Not for the standard reasons but because over the next 15 to 20 years China will have almost 75 million males reach the age for marriage but without prospects in China. This could start a war if not managed – and I do not know how such a thing can be managed.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1) On foreign policy. By entangling alliances I mean those that would compel us to military action on behalf of another nation.

I believe in free trade, and agreements that actually facilitate those activities. I believe in diplomatic relations with all nations. We ought not have any foe's if we'd be open with all nations.

Rubber, and all other goods not indigenous to the United States we would purchase in a free market environment.

Treaties that would compel us to enter into conflicts I am against. That is what George Washington was warning us about in his farewell address.

Trade agreements that would step outside the sovereignty of the United States (dictate prices, labor, etc.) are contrary to the intent of the framers.

2) The graduated income tax is a central tenet of Marxist Communism. That alone should give pause to any American.

Besides that, the Federal Government was able to function quite well (and withing its' Constitutional mandates) WITHOUT an income tax. Prior to the income tax amendment (which may not have been properly ratified), the Federal Government received the bulk of its' revenue from excise taxes on imports. They were not burdensome.

I appreciate bring the discussion back to a narrow focus. One of the reasons I was a bit broad in scope on my opening comments was to not constrain the discussion. But I agree that a more specific approach is now a good idea. Thanks.

JBS: I selected rubber for several reasons. Because of the unique character of rubber it has never been traded on a “free market”. It has led to many wars – including the Vietnam War and other previous wars that intended to open an extremely controlled and corrupt marked.

There are other problems with trade that I am not sure you are considering – for example there are products that we cannot get without relationships with Russia and all this was going on during the “Cold War”.

It would be so nice for us to dictate to others what we want of them in trading but it is rather naive that we believe we are the only ones with ability and desire to dictate terms. However, it does seem appear that the more necessary and scarce a commodity the more corrupt whatever it is that controls it.

A for Taxes:

I am not sure you understand the constitution. Our founding fathers were not concerned about burden of taxes as much as they were concerned about the concept of sharing the burden. The concept was to asses each state a share of taxes based on the population of that state (an idea I really like – I think the more voters that a state registers the more taxes that state should pay in Federal taxes). Note the correlation between the numbers of representatives a state has and the amount of tax burden assessed.

What you propose is that only states with sea ports should be assessed taxes on the goods entering the country through their ports and any interior state should not pay any taxes at all. This is without question contrary to the constitution and the founding fathers.

One possible way to end the tax question is that states are assessed a federal tax based on their population and they figure out how the tax is collected from the citizens of that state – This is very much in line with the Constitution and the founding fathers. This would be interesting because nobody would buy into the silly notion that the Federal Government should be giving money to the states.

Anyway some thoughts.

The Traveler

[a-train]

I do favor free trade but to have free trade, borders must be relatively open and working environments must be somewhat similar or respected and accepted.

So we have this notion of 'free trade'. What does that mean? I think that before we can agree on policy that will promote 'free trade', we have to define it.

I think most of us agree that free trade is a system in which trade of goods and services goes unhindered by government restriction. We want free trade because we want and believe in liberty. Where disagreements seem to arise is on the subject of private influence. A powerful force is constantly trying to convince us that completely unregulated trade leads to private monopolization and manipulation. The claim is made that government intervention is necessary to equalize opportunities of big and small players in an economy.

Dr. Manuel F. Ayau wrote:

Free trade requires no treaties. All that is needed is to remove (unilaterally or multilaterally) artificial barriers to trade: England did this in the mid-nineteenth century, Hong Kong in the mid-twentieth century. In 1789, the Constitution of the United States needed just fifty-four words to establish free trade among the states. NAFTA, the "free" trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States has two thousand pages, nine hundred of which are tariff rates.

The sheer size of these trade agreements with their myriad of stipulations and controls--such as rules of origin and the corresponding inspections, verification requirements, and the interference in sovereign affairs such as labor laws--belie their name.

Trade agreements are filled with "exception." A favor is protection from foreign competition for those who wield political influence through vested interests, typically the producers of essential items. Ironically, manual government efforts allow producers of basic consumer items to charge high prices, redistributing income upwards: from the poorest members of society to the privileged few. Rather than free trade these agreements create a regime of managed trade and, not least, lots of expensive useless wealth-consuming jobs for bureaucrats.

To supervise and control trade between countries makes as much economic sense as supervising and controlling trade between the states or provinces of the same country....

Trade agreements have other detrimental implications. They discriminate against lower-cost imports from countries that are not part of the treat. Trade is diverted away from them to more expensive tax-exempt suppliers, in countries that signed that FTA. Now, the importers of these higher-cost goods need more foreign currency to pay for them. And as a bonus, part of the tax revenue the government gave up with the tariff exemption winds up as income of the pocket of the favored supplier. - Not a Zero-Sum Game

Government regulation cannot create trade or capital. It can only take from some and give to others, a process that a free market already does fairly and without emotion in the most effective manner.

In a nutshell, the more we regulate trade, the less free it is, the less liberty we have.

Would you agree?

-a-train

Edited October 16, 2008 by a-train

[Starfish]

JohnBirchSociety, I agree with much of what you say.

However, what would have happened if we had not answered Churchill's call for help in WWII? (#8)

Thanks.

[JohnBirchSociety]

JohnBirchSociety, I agree with much of what you say.

However, what would have happened if we had not answered Churchill's call for help in WWII? (#8)

Thanks.

In WWII Congress properly declared war. And we won.

I've no problem with exercising our human, moral obligation to protect innocents from tyranny, wherever we chose to do so.

Under no circumstances should we have agreements with any nation to enter into warfare on their behalf.

If there is a moral reason to act, we can, an ought to do so. We should do so using our total national sovereignty (which entangling alliances diminish), in our own interests, through proper constitutional mandate.

We did this in WWII and won. I will posit that we will not win another large-scale conflict again if we don't follow the Constitution. As an example, take Korea, Vietnam, etc. In fact, every major conflict that we have entered into since WWII we have not won.

[Traveler]

So we have this notion of 'free trade'. What does that mean? I think that before we can agree on policy that will promote 'free trade', we have to define it.

I think most of us agree that free trade is a system in which trade of goods and services goes unhindered by government restriction. We want free trade because we want and believe in liberty. Where disagreements seem to arise is on the subject of private influence. A powerful force is constantly trying to convince us that completely unregulated trade leads to private monopolization and manipulation. The claim is made that government intervention is necessary to equalize opportunities of big and small players in an economy.

Dr. Manuel F. Ayau wrote:Government regulation cannot create trade or capital. It can only take from some and give to others, a process that a free market already does fairly and without emotion in the most effective manner.

In a nutshell, the more we regulate trade, the less free it is, the less liberty we have.

Would you agree?

-a-train

I have thought a lot about your posts and the question about free trade. The problem is that you are assuming that any government oversight diminishes free trade. In my mind there are elements that must exist for free trade - not that certain elements must be missing. I think the existence of needed elements is much more important than the absence of certain elements. If the necessary elements are missing then government must intervene to protect their industries. Let me give some examples.

If a country is engaging in slave labor, child labor, government subsidies, or protective tariffs an attempt at free trade by their trading partners will result in a corresponding business disadvantage unless they also seek some “unfair” advantage that is not directed towards making the product better. The concept of free trade is to create competition associated with producing the best product at a reasonable price rather than an inferior product at a much lower price.

What company would move their manufacturing to Mexico in an effort to improve the completive quality of their product? But there are other considerations, such as safety, reliability, on time delivery, and payment contracts. I believe free trade cannot exist between two countries as long as one maintains an advantage.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

JohnBirchSociety, I agree with much of what you say.

However, what would have happened if we had not answered Churchill's call for help in WWII? (#8)

Thanks.

I have often pondered this question - and I am not completely convinced that we would be that much better off at this point. In the short term we have been better off but I am not sure that in the long term it really has made that much of a difference. There was once a time when the citizens had confidence in at least one of the cantidates for the highest office of this nation.

The Traveler

[a-train]

I have thought a lot about your posts and the question about free trade. The problem is that you are assuming that any government oversight diminishes free trade. In my mind there are elements that must exist for free trade - not that certain elements must be missing. I think the existence of needed elements is much more important than the absence of certain elements. If the necessary elements are missing then government must intervene to protect their industries. Let me give some examples.

If a country is engaging in slave labor, child labor, government subsidies, or protective tariffs an attempt at free trade by their trading partners will result in a corresponding business disadvantage unless they also seek some “unfair” advantage that is not directed towards making the product better. The concept of free trade is to create competition associated with producing the best product at a reasonable price rather than an inferior product at a much lower price.

What company would move their manufacturing to Mexico in an effort to improve the completive quality of their product? But there are other considerations, such as safety, reliability, on time delivery, and payment contracts. I believe free trade cannot exist between two countries as long as one maintains an advantage.

The Traveler

If both countries are completely equal in every way, what would be the purpose of trade at all? The mutual benefit of trade is to extend to each party the advantage of the respective parties. Let us start with the moral and philosophical issue. Should the government decide for you what is moral? Should the government decide for you where to shop and what to buy? And, if it does, is that free trade?

-a-train

[Moksha]

I think a strong Christian mandate is to provide faith, hope and charity to others. I cannot see how this could be accomplished with a devotion to dog-eat-dog capitalism.

[FunkyTown]

Moksha has hit the nail on the head.

Everyone: Look at your shoes. Go on. Take a look. Now, look on the net to see where your shoes were made. Were they made in your own country? If not, the chances are they were made by near-slave labor in countries where horrible work conditions are king. Look at your shirts, your shoes, your electronics. How many of them were made in your country for a fair wage?

Unrestricted trade(Which is NOT 'Fair trade') and unrestricted capitalism has resulted in an unsustainable economy where companies exploit whoever they can to get whatever product they can.

Henry Ford once said there was one rule for industrialists and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. We, humanity, have failed at this. That is why unrestricted capitalism doesn't work.