tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post112256779915513442..comments2009-07-12T16:44:52.061-04:00Archibaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03571982281677594276noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post-1122591213320066302005-07-28T18:53:00.000-04:002005-07-28T18:53:00.000-04:00Evan, racism has historically been a prime motivator for organized labor in America. Low-income, undereducated whites were afraid of any immigrant labor or even the influx of blacks from the South as it diluted the labor pool. <BR/><BR/>Now labor forces are less explicitly racist and more xenophobic -- because they have to be: goodies for everyone working at Wal-Mart, but goddamn those foreigners who want to undercut our standard of living here in the YOO-nited States of Amerrricah.Nikos A. Leverenzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12345627616609811429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post-1122588487297638192005-07-28T18:08:00.000-04:002005-07-28T18:08:00.000-04:00Opposing free trade because it might "hurt the economy" or "hurt central american workers" (not sure how?) is dispicable. Free trade is universally preferential to protectionism---and upholding protectionism on the grounds that some of our economic prowess might be dissipated, well, that's bloody racist if you ask me.Evannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post-1122585479572621022005-07-28T17:17:00.000-04:002005-07-28T17:17:00.000-04:00I agree, Evan. A good point. However, most of the Democrats (and for that matter Republicans) I heard speak against it said it would be bad for the economy and/or will hurt central american workers. I admit that some people that voted against it probably support free trade.Cicerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09021600563994065236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post-1122583835563907092005-07-28T16:50:00.000-04:002005-07-28T16:50:00.000-04:00"It’s time for libertarians to stop playing nice with liberals."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, give all those "liberals" hell! Like, um, Ron Paul. Goddamned "liberal"! <BR/><BR/>Of course, Paul is actually a LewRockwellesque libertarian---and he opposed it on the grounds that it creates another governmental beaurocracy. But I'm not sure it's fair to simply say that if you voted against CAFTA, you think free trade is bad. Ron Paul is case in point. <BR/><BR/>Issues like this are never as black and white as Cicero makes it out to be. There are complexities and nuances, and the reasons people oppose it are never really as simple as "they hate free trade". Granted, I think Ron Paul made a mistake, because he was a bit too idealistic, and made the perfect the enemy of the better. But, regardless, Cicero: voting against CAFTA doesn't automatically make one a "moron". If they come out and say, "FREE TRADE IS BAD!", then, you might have a point, but the two don't go hand in hand.Evannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13470103.post-1122573473399558552005-07-28T13:57:00.000-04:002005-07-28T13:57:00.000-04:00Interesting melding of the minds at Reason's Hit and Run, including yours truly:<BR/><BR/>http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/07/cafta_passeda.shtmlNikos A. Leverenzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12345627616609811429noreply@blogger.com