Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Double Feature: What is (& is NOT) FREE TRADE? What is MONEY?



Question from a Punks 4 Ron Paul reader:

"While I appreciate your viewpoints and support of the only real candidate (as I see it ) on the right, I would like to see how you respond to this opinion that I have on Libertariansim.

Libertarians are so for freedom that they shy away from restricting the free market. Ironically, it is the free market that is the biggest source of our oppression.Unregulated capitalism creates an atmosphere where the rich are free to invest their capital to make even more capital (the poor do not have that option) and have the capability to create infinite wealth if they are wise in their investments. The poor only have the option of working hard and hoping to catch a break somewhere. This is the atmosphere that has created the huge multinational corporations that seem to rule the world and act in the interest of profit before people (and yes, even personal liberty). The free market is what allows military contractors to profit from war, and therefore use their wealth to create it for, in turn, more profit. I don't need to lecture you on all the injustices of the world, I am sure you are well aware of them, but I think libertarians too often place the blame on big government, rather than big money. The problem as I see it is that the government, yes, is too big, but that it represents the interests of the corporations and the wealthy who almost always work against the interests of the people. Our government was set up to represent the people, and if it truly did it would not matter how big the government was because it would always be acting in our interests. Instead, governments from both Republican and Democratic Presidents and congress have bent over backwards to appease their campaign supporters who are, naturally, rich. And we all know who the rich of this country is comprised of.

As a punk rocker and former Anarchist, I was forced to recognize at one point in my life that although the government is the source of our oppression, it was set up to represent us and therfore can be infiltrated by us. It is easier to pass a law, say, telling corporations that they can't put poison in our food, then it is to inform the mass public that there is poison in our food and that they should boycott the producer. Especially when the media also caters to the same money influence as our government. I feel like our best hope is for public financing of elections. Obviously, something that would have to come from taxes which you may or may not (don't want to assume your position) agree with. It is the only way to ensure that the government answers to the people and not the corporations who finance them (currently). We also have to de-privatize our electoral system, another area where I believe that the free market is acting against our interests.

Am I over-looking something?


Answer:
Have you ever encountered any of these articles? What do you think about the idea that the phrase "free trade" has been hijacked and is used as an Orwellian double-speak, cognitive dissonance sort-of-way?

Check out these links on the difference between what is called "free trade" but is actually "managed trade" and anything but free!

NAFTA, WTO, "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS" VS. FREE TRADE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul250.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=866
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=140

Let me tell you what I think of when I think of “free trade.” I think of my dream cottage industry. I have always wanted to be able to bake cookies from my home and sell them. I am not kidding. I am good at it and I’ve always wanted to be able to do it. I am a mother of one child and I wanted to have a cottage industry so I wouldn’t have to pay someone to care for him 5 days a week. I also wanted to homeschool him, so a cottage industry would be perfect.

When I did the research on what is required to proceed with my plan “legally” I found out that I would need to have access to a “certified kitchen” either my own or someone elses. It costs somewhere around $1000 to do this. There are all kinds of other permits and fees (and multiple agencies) to comply with all these regulations. The start-up cost for this is prohibitive. Going to a bank for a loan (of federal reserve notes, which brings up the question “what is money”) is just another form of indentured servitude. The banks are then in control of my life and the economy, not me or “the people.”

I posted a little about this on my BLOG recently:

http://thebestofronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/05/advocates-for-self-government-on-kpfa.html

http://thebestofronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/05/left-libertarians-and-workers-of-world.html

If you read the article on my BLOG and one or more of the articles on “free trade” that I’ve posted above, then get back to me if you have any other questions and concerns. I’d love to talk with you.

Thanx 4 the feedback!
P4RP

PS
One more thing:

You asked: "Am I over-looking something?"

Great question! I love people who can have a conversation!

The question I am starting to ask more and more people (as I have realized it more and more myself) is -

WHAT IS MONEY? I think we all need to be asking ourselves more and more.

I am totally open to all kinds of alternatives. The main point is that we Americans have got to start questioning our very monetary system itself!

I would urge you to watch one or both of these films. I really hope you will:


FIAT EMPIRE
fiatempire.com

This Telly Award-winning documentary, which features presidential candidate RON PAUL, was inspired by the book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by well-known author, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN.



One more:
The MONOPOLY MEN (from the Phenomena Archives - fun show)



P.P.S.
Sorry, I'm still processing your question. I'll stop answering after this, unless you want to continue:

"The free market is what allows military contractors to profit from war"

Is this the market/people or the "military [medical] industrial complex" that Eisenhower, himself, as he was leaving office, warned us about?

3 comments:

Bret Moore said...

I'm a former punk rocker - still an anarchist, but now an anarcho-capitalist. Rothbard will show you the way, my friend! It makes sense because it's truth and reality.

Bon Oxford said...

speaking of anarcho-capitalism, i am currently having a debate with a self-proclaimed "anarchist" who believes capitalism and anarchism are somehow incompatible with each other...please go to the following address to see why this idea is fundamentally wrong--or, join in on the debate!

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27411170&blogID=292937209

Cranky said...

Hi, my name is DaveP, I'm the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh, and a Ron Paul Meetup co-organizer for our area. I'd like to address some of your question, Punker.

Others have noted that we don't really have free trade, more a managed trade (also true of health care).

Punker points out that military contractors are a result of the "free market". He is correct, but wrong, in that the current market (ie: American military hedgemony) demands more soldiers, but this is due to the unconstitutional behavior of our government.

If we really need war, we should declare it, fight it, and win it. If we need to fight a shadowy enemy, we should declare a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" and consign either private or military units to range the world, seek our the enemy, and destroy the enemy (but no one else...a couple of British privateers were hungs because they went too far).

Punker also rightly discerns the influential power of money in politics.

Any lever of power granted for good can also be used for evil. The more levers and tools and pork, the greater the fight.

Consider also, that the government has rigged the system for a duopoly. Ballot access is difficult, at best (in my state PA the Green party candidate Romanelli lost a hasty peition challenge, and has to pay nearly $1 MILLION in legal fees).

We could make one little change in the way votes are counted (there's a whole complex field about this, but too much for here). We could rank a first and second choice, eliminating the "Spoiler Effect". Perot-Bush might have beaten Clinton, and Nader-Gore might have beaten Bush.

Either way, people could vote for whom they *wanted* rather than by who the MSM says should win.

Hope this helps,
DaveP
lppgh.org