Benjamin Bytheway wrote: > Umm, Ron Paul isn't a protectionist. He's for free trade with everyone, but > on our terms and not dictated to us by some worldwide organization.
The moment you say "on our terms" then the statement becomes self-contradictory. Either trade is free or it's not. Even under current trade agreements it's never free, largely in part because of *our* terms, our protectionism. Trade organizations and governing bodies are necessary because of our unwillingness to trade freely. For example the softwood lumber dispute with Canada. If we would stop being hypocritical about the trade issue, then we would have free trade and the governing bodies and arbitration groups would disappear because they simply wouldn't be needed. Free trade has always meant whatever we want it to mean. This is a problem and it sounds like Ron Paul would make it much much worse. > He > wouldn't be implementing protectionist tariffs to protect American > industries. In fact, he's all for trading with places like Cuba, not > something exactly looked well upon by the UN, WTO, etc. > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > -- Michael Torrie Assistant CSR, System Administrator Chemistry and Biochemistry Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 +1.801.422.5771 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
