North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court

[Thin Black Line]

C) Complain about technological and economic change; but the let the corporations and their lobbyists drive the change and make the rules

IMHO, this is what I see happening right now. I can't show up at a senator's
office and promise him a highly paid consultant job when he leaves that
office if he would just follow the way I would like to see things done. All I
can promise him is my thanks and admiration for his values which doesn't
seem to go very far among those who are not idealists, but mercenaries.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I can't show up at a senator's
office and promise him a highly paid consultant job when he leaves that
office if he would just follow the way I would like to see things done

Like any other job, a Senator's value comes from experience. A Senator who works 24 years is a lot more valuable to a corporation than one who works a single-six year term. Not only does the more experienced Senator have better connections and knowledge, he only has to be replaced every 24 years.

While you can't offer a Senator a consultant job, by organizing and voting, you can reduce the usefulness of mercenary Senators by requiring corporations to replace them more frequently and stopping them from building up as much of a knowledge base.

and they are counting on people who say nothing can be done.

This is absolutely true. The people who don't share the goal of individual liberty are very much counting on most individuals being apathetic or saying "nothing can be done."

I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

 

[NineseveN]

The ballot box only works when the majority is with you, sadly, in a lot of places, this is not the case, hence the problem. I'm not saying 'nothing can be done', but a simple solution such as voting (which we should all do anyway) might be a feel-good approach, but it just ain't effective. More than 53% of the New Orleans population voted to reelect Nagin, what's that tell ya?

And the founders knew that this kind of mass ignorance could and probably would take hold, which is why they used the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to limit the amount of action that a government can take in the name of the ignorant masses, but sadly many of those limits have been ignored as of late. At least we're fighting for some of those things…we’ll see what the Supremes say about the issues.

 

[Thin Black Line]

More than 53% of the New Orleans population voted to reelect Nagin, what's that tell ya?

To see if the voting machines were the ones owned by that Venezuelan
company.....

 

[longeyes]

I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

I happen to agree with you, but somehow individual liberty has been re-defined to omit the rights of self-defense and resistance to tyranny.

 

[wingman]

I don't believe it is the case that "nothing can be done." I do believe that an approach revolving around neo-Luddites and isolationism is going to be unsuccessful and even more difficult to implement than the already difficult task of creating globalism with a respect for individual liberty.

Simply because someone speaks against "globalization" does not in my opinion
mean they want to withdraw from all trade however anyone who thinks
we will have any individual liberty remaining if we continue on this path is
very naive. Once more those in power purely do not care about "rights of
the common man" they believe money has granted them supreme rights
and powers with the will to employ that force.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'd agree we have a lot to be concerned about and that there are very strong forces on the international level who have a "Brave New World" vision of individual liberty where none of the key rights proposed by our Founders are present.

I do not believe that globalization is a cabal of CFR/Freemasons/Illuminati/Bildenberger/etc. though, it is a natural evolutionary process of the economic system. The groups that promote globalism don't do it as an evil conspiracy. They do it because they want to sell more product. As technology makes it easy to sell things across international borders, people want to do that - and the people that are dealing in billions of dollars of goods want a common set of law and procedure to govern the transaction rather than have to deal with the law and procedure of every country that the goods pass through. Because property law is a common root of both business and individual liberty, it is hard to regulate one without affecting the other.

wingman, you seem to feel that this natural tendency towards globalism can be opposed or even stopped. What do you regard as an ideal solution towards that goal?

 

[longeyes]

The groups that promote globalism don't do it as an evil conspiracy. They do it because they want to sell more product. As technology makes it easy to sell things across international borders, people want to do that - and the people that are dealing in billions of dollars of goods want a common set of law and procedure to govern the transaction rather than have to deal with the law and procedure of every country that the goods pass through. Because property law is a common root of both business and individual liberty, it is hard to regulate one without affecting the other.

Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

 

[robertbank]

I hater to throw into this insightful discussion but as far as I know the North American Free Trade Agreement involves trade between three countries, period. I acknowledge the fact there are those out there who see some sort of conspiracy in all of this but the agreement has promoted trade betwen the three countries for the benefit of all three.

Now if you want to discuss why the U.S. fails to live up to a panel's ruling of "Lumber" and the illegal imposition of duties on Canadian Lumber put in place by your Congress at the behest of the Lumber Lobby then lets have at it. It is costing every American new home owner about $1,000 US per house built to protect a few very large lumber companies in the American South.

The NAFTA panel that ruled in Canada's favour was made up of two Amreicans and one Canadian. If the U.S. isn't capable of living up to it's Trade Agreements then why should anyone take the U.S. seriously when it comes to any agreement your Government signs?

If it were up to me I would turn the oil pipelines and electricity lines off until your Congressmen got tired of walking to work. Maybe then they might stop taking payoffs from the American Lumber lobby and deal straight for the benefit of the American people for a change.

Take Care

 

[Thin Black Line]

Now if you want to discuss why the U.S. fails to live up to a panel's ruling of "Lumber" and the illegal imposition of duties on Canadian Lumber put in place by your Congress at the behest of the Lumber Lobby then lets have at it. It is costing every American new home owner about $1,000 US per house built to protect a few very large lumber companies in the American South.

Apparently this didn't affect my house in the Midwest where sections of
particle board were stamped "Made in Canada."

Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

+1. Yeah, being seen as "workers" and "consumers" instead of CITIZENS.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another way of stating this is that globalism is not just about selling more product, it's about seeing human beings as a product, the commoditization of humanity itself. It is this that underscores the concerns of many of us.

In some ways I agree with this and in others I do not. For example, I can see the concerns about labor and outsourcing in the comment. The problem is that the statement is so broad I am not sure exactly how you meant it. Could you explain in more detail how you feel commoditization of humanity is linked to globalism? I am also interested in hearing how you feel the modern version is different from earlier labor conflicts in the first half of the 20th century (that is an open question btw, not just to longeyes).

 

[JBusch8899]

Speaking of trump

Who has it in their Constitutional power to trump not only SCOTUS, but POTUS and Congress?

You and I, Baby. By election, amendment, constitutional convention or armed rebellion.

 

[robertbank]

Thin Black Line

Yes and it may have cost you more than it should have. The US Gov't has already collected and now is negotiating paying back part of over $5 Billion dollars in illegal duties imposed to "protect" US lumber interests. Not sure partical board is involved. Cut lumber is the primary export. Estimated average price of a home due to the duties amounts to approx. $1,000US which you the home buyer forks out.

What is interesting is that the NAFTA dispute panel was designed and insisted upon by the U.S. I guess they figured with 2 out of 3 Americans on the panel (to be fair it changes from time to time), they would win all the cases. Hasn't proven out in this case. See most Americans in my view believe in playing fair, a fact the Congress and the Dept. of Commerce may have overlooked, no doubt with the assistance of the odd manila envelope.

Take Care

 

[Art Eatman]

robertbank, it goes the other way, too, as regards Canada/US tariffs on wood or wood products.

Before she retired, my wife had a small manufacturing business, making unfinished wooden boxes of various sizes and shapes for the Decorative Painter folks. She sold into Canada, as well as all over the US and other countries.

Even after NAFTA came into being, her Canadian customers still were paying extra...

Art

 

[CCWMAN]

BARTHOLOMEW YOU MUST BE FRIGGIN KIDDING?!

Bartholomew,
Credible people like the Late Senator Barry Goldwater, Former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Moorer,and many others have stated that the "American Union" being pushed is done so by the Council On Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission but Supervised and Orchestrated by the Bilderberg Group. Why do you think they're disarming every country-and now the U.N. is meeting during the 4th of July to destroy freedom by disarming us!

Globalization is in some ways natural but what's happened with N.A.F.T.A.,the resulting Mexican Peso Bailout, the GATT/WTO aggreement where if we try to stop dumping they rule against us, the ridiculous Immigration levels(Both legal & illegal) and even the spying ON US to "prevent terrorism" is part of a large conspiratorial plan. For years we've taken our freedoms for granted but if we lose them it will take a 2nd civil war and Ultimately a World War to Overthrow the "New World Order" and the U.N.!

If we do get nuked I hope we take out the rest of the world too. The European Model of the EU is what they want here-If our constitution is thrown out and they do what they want with these chips in people then I hope the world ends-it will not be worth a Damn to live in. These people are sick totalitarian S.O.B.'s and none of this happened before all this "globalization" came about and before the Trilateral Commission. YOU NEED TO READ THE BOOK "WITH NO APOLOGIES", by the late SENATOR BARRY GOLDWATER.

What is so horrific and unbelievable is that people can sit by and let this happen! The tragedy, damage, and oppression will be like nothing we've ever known and I know I will hate every day of my life unless somehow I can hide or find a way out. David Rockefeller, George Soros, and the other orchestrators and perpetrators need to be taken out by our Government before they destroy everything sacred.:banghead:

 

[Waitone]

Jerry Corsi was interviewed by Gordon Liddy. Compelling stuff. Problem is the interview was not posted.

Chuck Baldwin posted his interview here http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/Interview_Corsi.html
Utterly compelling interview.

Oh, BTW. Looking at the senate's amnesty bill through Corsi's glasses, one is forced to conclude the majority of the senate is on line with Bush's union plans.

 

[longeyes]

Could you explain in more detail how you feel commoditization of humanity is linked to globalism? I am also interested in hearing how you feel the modern version is different from earlier labor conflicts in the first half of the 20th century (that is an open question btw, not just to longeyes).

There are two different issues here. One is about preventing the monopolistic accumulation and consolidation of economic power. That challenge remains, though, of course, this is not 1930 and the specifics are different. All we have to do is look at what's occurred in media over the last decade or so. Thank God we have an Internet, that's all I can say. What's different from the early 20th century is that this struggle is not about robber barons versus labor union warlords, it is about individual entrepreneurs against corporate feudal states.

Globalism will have mass economic benefits, no doubt about that. But it will also militate against the Citizen in favor of the Consumer, and I don't believe that a strictly economic definition of the free, empowered individual is sufficient, especially if the model is "free market economics" as currently on display.

 

[Waitone]

Here is another interview by Jerome Corsi
http://www.thedavidallenshow.com/subject/globalism

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What's different from the early 20th century is that this struggle is not about robber barons versus labor union warlords, it is about individual entrepreneurs against corporate feudal states.

I'd agree with this. The Internet and other technologies have empowered small businesses to compete with larger businesses but still allowed them to have a fast and nimble decision cycle that the corporations do not have. It seems to me the corporations are using a lot of lobbying and legislation to protect their business from this new emerging threat to market share.

Globalism will have mass economic benefits, no doubt about that. But it will also militate against the Citizen in favor of the Consumer, and I don't believe that a strictly economic definition of the free, empowered individual is sufficient, especially if the model is "free market economics" as currently on display.

Well, even in the U.S. the markets are not a free-market in a lot of areas; but in those areas where a free-market predominates I think it is working well. It seems to me though that the kind of property guarantees that protect personal liberty are also the fundamental building blocks of a good business friendly economy. Based on that, I do not see why globalism must necessarily be hostile.

 

[longeyes]

It seems to me though that the kind of property guarantees that protect personal liberty are also the fundamental building blocks of a good business friendly economy.

Is the "business-friendly economy" friendly to RKBA? Or is Business more interested in reliable consumption rather than political and economic independence and self-reliance? If businesses could addict you as a consumer, they would; in fact, they have. Herein lies the problem: What is good for "business" isn't necessarily, per se, good for the free citizen.

 

[wingman]

What is good for "business" isn't necessarily, per se, good for the free citizen.

True, clear and to the point, it appears we are building a society that
feeds from the bottom half rather then produce a product and that
will end freedom or what remains.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is the "business-friendly economy" friendly to RKBA?

There is no business-friendly economy without stability of property. When people don't feel they can create and maintain property, they stop doing that. In an environment where business succeeds by lobbying instead of competition, you'll eventually strangle the tax-base and produce a sluggish, non-innovative market dominated by a few businesses that will be immediately outclassed by any real free market (underground or in another country)

 

[longeyes]

But many people do not equate "stability of property" with what those of us on this forum view as RKBA. You know that. They want stability enforced by the State. Is this not why corporations don't want CCW permit holders being armed on their premises? They do not really trust the free-thinking individual. Is not the same thing true in education? How many armed educators are there? We come back to the idea of one's view of the individual and individual rights. Corporations do not exist to promote individual rights, they exist to expand their customer base and maximize profits. I think our public education system is also "corporate," though governmentally-funded; its primary job is to produce useful workers, not individuals or citizens.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But many people do not equate "stability of property" with what those of us on this forum view as RKBA.

I would say that is because those people view RKBA through a Somalia-like bias. They see firearms as enabling mayhem that destabilizes the ability to own property. They see it as contributing to feudalism and feuds between armed gangs.

I think they miss the important point though - the same thing would happen without guns and probably at a higher rate. Your property would be subject to the biggest and best organized gang of thugs even without firearms. With firearms though, even an armed group has to face a higher risk (death or serious injury) and stands a greater likelihood of seeing that result.

I think an important point to promoting RKBA on a global level will be to show how it contributes to stability and economic growth in a society, rather than detracts from it. Allowing the state a monopoly on the use of lethal force only promotes stability when the citizens of the state are basically bandits already...

 

[longeyes]

True enough, which is why "RKBA" is only secondarily about the MEANS of self-defense and first about the formation of a Citizen, which to me implies many things, but among them Reason, responsibility, a sense of honor, and a degree of self-reliance. "Somalia" is a cultural state of mind, antipodal to the notion of the enlightened citizen of a Republic.

My problem with globalism, as currently evolving, is that it is all about the spread of corporate business and corporate empires, with the cooperation of, and marriage to, the State. Neither the State nor the Corporation, as I view them, are friendly either to RKBA or the individual.