This is part of a letter I've sent to a self-identified Liberal Democrat
friend of mine. My parts have >> or nothing in front, and
her parts have > in front.
-----
> > Lemme guess, you didn't major in math or economics.
> > Protectionism is a very tempting position because
> > it *feels* plausible. And the case against it relies
> > on some math and a certain faith in economic observations
> > that really aren't very emotionally compelling on
> > their own, and aren't particularly intuitive, IMHO.

> I base my opinions more on history than math. History
> is replete with examples of how, given half a chance,
> the wealthy few will trample all over the impoverished
> many. From African Bushmen (I'm currently reading
> Michener's The Covenant)and Mexican Indians enslaved
> and forced to live and work in mines, to the abuses of
> the industrial revolution (you've read The Jungle,
> right?) economic Darwinism is horribly unfair to those
> born without the intelligence or opportunity to claw
> their way to the top. I see sensible government
> regulation as the only way to have a broadbased middle
> class and a decent standard of living for everyone.

Bwah hah hah. You've swallowed some serious propaganda
along with your history. Yes, the wealthy few will want
to force the weak to remain weak, and will use force to
get and keep an unfair advantage. But what is their
primary instrument of force?

Remember that an actual free market is free from force.
Nobody forces you at gunpoint to go into the McDonald's
and order a Happy Meal.

Contrast that with the infamous "company towns" built
around mining operations, where miners were paid in
company 'scrip' rather than cash, and had to buy food
and rent rooms from the company-owned monopoly sellers.
Anybody who tried to come in and sell groceries at a fair
price, or rent rooms at decent rates, was beaten up by
the company goons.

The company town was many things, but it was no free
market, and the oppressors used force (illegally) to
keep it unfree.

The whole "social Darwinism" thing was horrible
propaganda that tried to find a veneer of scientific
respectability to cover up crushing injustice and
oppression and victimization.

Actual free markets, which I advocate, can only exist
inside a framework of laws, such as property rights,
contract law, and a rock-solid guarantee that every
person is entitled to live free from coercion, force,
and the threat of force.

Do big companies defend free markets? No, almost
never. Big companies tend to look for special treatment
by the government -- so Coke gets millions of taxpayer
dollars every year for "overseas development" and
Archer Daniels Midland gets a half a billion every
year in ethanol subsidies. None of that is free
market stuff. It's corporate welfare.

The way to stop it is to outlaw special treatment.
Then politicians can't sell that special treatment to
the highest bidder.

But as soon as you open the door to special treatment,
subsidies, handouts, assistance, etc., you guarantee
that the bulk of that money will go to the powerful
and the politically well connected.

The only way to allow government handouts and NOT
have them get abused is to have a government of
angels, and as Lincoln said, if we had a government
of angels, we wouldn't need laws.

(Can you tell I ran for Atty General?)

So in sum, I think the well intentioned idea that
the government is going to stand up for the little
guy is bullshit in practice. The government, any
government, has only one thing to bring to the party,
and that is force.

If that force is used to enforce "sensible regulation"
such as (say) child labor laws, product safety and
liability standards, truth in labelling laws, and
the like, then you and I are on the same side. But
when that force is used to enforce so-called "fair
trade" rules, and contains a lot of discretion as to
who gets what money and what treatment by the law, then
it's an invitation to mischief.

One of my favorite examples of supposed fairness that
masks actual mischief is farm price supports. The
supposed or claimed benefit is "help for the family
farm", which is bad policy anyway. But in reality
90% of the dollars go to big industrial farms owned
and run by big-donating corporations. A better policy
would be income supports to low-income families, and
an even better policy than that would be no support
at all, and let the families sell their farms and get
other higher-paying work elsewhere.

The other casualty of farm price supports, of course,
is the consumer, who pays higher prices for food, has
less money left for other things, AND pays taxes to
prop up the prices! And then we have warehouses full
of rotting cheese that the government has purchased
at artificially high prices and can't find a use for.
Stupid, Soviet-style screwing up of the market.

> > Here is something I'm reading on this very subject:
> > http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/7036/1.html

> > > And as for border
> > > control, if you've ever been an English speaking
> > > person living in Miami, you'd be hard pressed not to
> > > turn into the world's biggest xenophobe.

> > Why? I thought you liberals were all love and no
> > judgement.

> Live and learn . Do you even know any other
> liberals? I thought we were a dying breed. Actually,
> I was much more liberal on immigration until I spent
> 18 years being repeatedly told that "Esta Miami! Habla
> Espanol!". I am not exaggerating when I say that the
> 56% of the population in Dade County which is Hispanic
> descriminates mercilessly against anyone non-hispanic.
> It is virtually impossible to get a job there if you
> don't speak fluent UNACCENTED Spanish.

> I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I have no
> problem with anyone of any ethnic background, but when
> they come to America they should speak English like
> everyone else has done for 200 years. Where do you
> stand on the English only debate?

I don't want to see the government push anybody around.
So, I wouldn't want a legal REQUIREMENT that anybody
be able to speak English (or any other language).

I also don't want to see the government spend a lot of
taxpayer money supporting multiple languages. If there
is a large (say) Spanish speaking community, let them
raise private funds to pay for translating government
publications.

I would conduct voluntary government business in English,
so your driver's license test would be in English.

I would conduct mandatory government business in the
person's own language (i.e. provide translators to
people charged with crimes).