Right…
So, then, it is socialized medicine. Your point in saying it wasn’t…?
What the fuck. Semantics?
Free market = no restrictions. Only an anarchist can support a truly free market as any law that regulates people in some way affects-- and thus regulates-- trade.
The benefit to the rest of us is so obvious and pervasive that it escapes notice. Let’s take refridgerators as an example.
US Refridgerators, Inc. sells fridges for $1000 each, and employs 1000 American workers.
China Cold, Ltd. starts making fridges and shipping them to the U.S., where they sell for $500 each. They quickly drive US Refridgerators out of business. 1000 workers lose their jobs.
But every American who needs a fridge saves $500. People who couldn’t afford a fridge when it cost $1000 can now buy one. And there are a hell of a lot more fridge purchasers than the 1000 who lost their jobs.
'Course, the same thing would happen if a U.S. company started selling fridges for $500, and they did it through automation, employing only 100 workers. Should that company be closed down to save the 1000 jobs at US Refridgerators?
Sua
Just for the record, I am not saying there should not be environmental laws, labor laws etc. I have never said that. We already have them by the thousands and I am ready to discuss each one on its own merits. They are fine by me. I have no problem with general regulations of the type “you cannot dump bleach into a river” or “you have to work safely”. But once those regulations are in place for all, the market should work freely, people should freely buy what they find suits them best at the best price and manufacturers should be free to seek the best conditions and offer whatever products they think the market will buy. Any regulations which would have the objective of making manufacturers locate here rather than there are IMHO wrong. Free market does not mean absence of regulations, it means regulations are general in nature and are not intended to influence what people buy or sell.
I would like to see photos or footage of the police attacking a peaceful group. I do not believe for a minute that is not news and would be suppressed. That is plain nonsense. Everything I have seen shows riotous mobs.
Again, many other groups demonstrate and make themselves heard without causing riots. I just cannot believe there is an international conspiracy to repress these people.
At any rate, I have to repeat that the argument of the demonstrators that it is only a few who are violent is disingenous (have I said that before?). It is like the Godfather saying he is a peaceful man who would hurt nobody and it is not his fault if Tony and Frank here, who go with him everywhere, get annoyed by the same things and decide to break a man’s kneecaps. What can he do? He is still a peaceful man.
I am also a peaceful man. I just happen to have this pit bull Tony, (hi Tony), who goes with me everywhere and who attacks people who annoy me. (SIT Tony). So how can I be blamed if me and Tony here are going for a walk and meet some protestors who happen to annoy Tony here?
It should be noted that free trade is one of the only major political issues in which there is broad agreement across the political spectrum, and almost universal agreement among economists that it is a good thing.
The only people that really oppose free trade anymore are those on the fringes - rabid protectionists, nationalists, and some environmentalists.
There’s another group of ‘fair traders’ that claim to be for free trade, except that they want to use the prospect of it like a club to force other nations to comply with their demands.
This is just about the dumbest argument that I have ever seen in GD. Let’s say that 95% of the protesters want a peaceful protest and 5% are willing to resort to violence. The 95% do not hire the 5% to do the violent work; they would be happier if the violent protesters did not show up at all. Your “argument” is nothing but unsupported ranting.
His arguement is flawed. But those 5%, whatever it actually is, will ruin it for the rest of the protestors.
Marc
I gave you a link up there from the Manchester Guardian. Enjoy.
Everything I’ve heard about Genoa (including from the Christian Aid people who had a huge presence there) suggests the riots kicked off after the Italian Anarchists (until then doing their own thing elsewhere) decided to march to, and agitate the police from within, the main group of peaceful protestors who were just milling around some distance from the ‘Red Zone’. At that point the police moved in to disperse the entire crowd, later that day a protestor was shot and killed and after that it all went nuts.
From that I read the peaceful protestors – the overwhelming majority of those at Genoa – were manipulated by both the local Anarchists and the police, each for their own ends - there was no reason to disperse the whole crowd as the Anarchists were readily recognisable in black and waving black flags.
These occasions are little more than a battle for the media’s attention. The reporting itself is primarily done by multi-national corporations with vested interests – what we see on the evening news is what those who own the media want us to see and interpreted for us by them.
They ain’t perfect but, from these shores, I bless the BBC and The Guardian.
erislover - Your definition:
A fellow American’s definition:
My definition of free trade would be, in part, the free trade of goods and services within an established and agreed international framework - that used to be GATT but is now the WTO.
No one is against “free trade” on any side of the ‘Globalisation’ debate, as far as I’m aware.
The issue’s Free Trade, no bad behavior. If you want to talk about the protesters, start another thread. The protests just got me to thinking (Hey, it worked), but I’d like to leave them out of the discussion.
Lots of interesting stuff. I’m sold. Free Trade for everyone! My only cavaet is that we’ll have to start thinking like we’re all in the same boat (or on the same planet). My head swims with the concerns I have, but I think it’s time for everyone on the planet to have a confortable life. Thanks for the elucidation.
One original question remains, why is it that our government seems determined to push this through without public discussion?
Here’s a hint: