Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132721)	10/9/2001 3:39:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

>> craig, any law of any kind limits personal sovereignty << i don't think that's true. don't some laws preserve and protect sovereignty? >> your assumption that any loss of sovereignty is bad << so you are now agreeing that the united states is ceding sovereignty to international bodies? because before i couldn't even get you to admit that we have surrendered sovereignty--now you are saying it's ok if we cede some sovereignty. >> agreeing not to nuke canada is a loss of sovereignty << you think we should give up the sovereign right to use nuclear weapons to defend ourselves on whoever and whenever we choose? even amongst all these flags i see flying around it's amazing how unpatriotic americans have become. according to you we need to worry about trampling on europe's sovereignty and we need to be considerate of canada's feelings when deciding when to use nuclear weapons. how about putting america's interests first and letting europe and canada worry about their own sovereignty? if a bunch of european countries feel it's worthwhile to surrender national sovereignty in order to gain bargaining power against behemoths like the US, let them. perhaps they don't enjoy the same freedoms and liberties we do so they have nothing to lose. here, country comes first and foremost. those suckers in europe are losing their countries. let 'em. people like myself will not let the united states turn into just another province of the world. we are a republic, founded on independence and freedom. sanctioning some global movement toward a one world government is precisely the opposite of what our founders fought to achieve. >> i might not agree with all of the agreements these folks make, however, i think the conspiracy theory is a bit much. << conspiracy implies a secret plot. i never said it was a secret or a conspiracy. i have always maintained that the politicians and transnational elites advocate this movement and sign away our freedoms right before our very own eyes. >> btw, how would you resolve it? << i think i have been pretty clear. do not enter into global trade agreements that lead to the surrender of our national sovereignty. use our economic leadership to negotiate trade deals that put america first--not the transnational elites. do you realize that Ford & IBM have more employees outside the US than here at home? is it any surprise they don't have america's best interests in mind? is it any surprise companies like this lobby for trade deals to further enhance their bottom line? we need to retain our freedom of independence in the future to unilaterally negotiate trade deals. joining international trade agreements undermines that freedom to act unilaterally, and forces us to act multilaterally. >> who would YOU FORCE to do what and why is that better than the status quo??? << there you go again. when you refer to my suggestions for action, we are FORCING our will on the world. yet when referring to ge/hon you invoked the technicality that the EC could not FORCE them to terminate their merger. i ceded you the point that technically ge/hon could have merged, although the EC made it totally unbeneficial to do so, effectively blocking the merger. now you want to throw technicalities out the window and imply that i suggest we FORCE something upon people in violation of their freedom. take your pick. do you want the argument to center on technicalities or the more inportant broader issues?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (132721)	10/9/2001 5:01:16 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

Skeeter, to some, any trade agreement is a threat to our sovereignty just as any other treaty is a threat. Ron Paul says he's for "true free trade" which, apparently, means no regulations at all on the ability of US businesses to sell their goods anywhere they want. If he's willing to give foreign businesses the same access to the US market, then he has dreamed up a nice utopia. Problem is few, if any, businesses, governments or individuals are so selfless as to let such a utopia exist. Dropping trade barriers would be labeled as "ceding our sovereignty" by anyone disadvantaged as a result. It's kind of like the communist ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sounds fair, but it doesn't work. Besides, not all regulation of business is meant to restrict trade or protect domestic businesses. Some is intended to protect the environment, consumers (safety and privacy regulations, for example) or workers (workplace safety, anti-discrimination laws, etc.). These regulations differ from country to country. Hell, regulations even differ from state to state in the US. If a US business or industry is faced with EU regulations when doing business in Europe (privacy laws governing financial institutions, for example), they have two choices. They can conform to local laws wherever they want to do business or they can lobby, perhaps with the help of our government, to have the EU adopt regulations they can live with. If there are economic benefits to be gained from conforming regulations (theirs to our or ours to theirs), then choosing to do so is not, in itself, a ceding of sovereignty. Of course, even if there are economic benefits, there is likely to be someone claiming that they are harmed or that they rights are violated by the agreement. If a proposed trade agreement and resulting changes to regulations would, in fact, impinge upon the constitutionally protected rights of US persons, then the agreement or regulation should not be made or, if made, should be struck down by the courts. If, OTOH, it simply disadvantages the US person by taking away some trade barrier or other pre-existing advantage (or by imposing a regulation within the government's authority), then the "ceding of sovereignty" argument against the trade agreement is without merit. For example (a totally made up one), a trade agreement where Brazil agrees to limit harvesting of old growth tropical woods in order to get us to allow a small amount to be exported to the US might be argued, by the Brazilian timber industry, to violate Brazilian sovereignty. However, if the Brazilian government has the right to regulate and limit such harvests, then it does not violate sovereignty even though the industry is, in fact, harmed. Likewise, if the EU wants to get the US to change some regulation in exchange for access to their markets, and if the change is within the constitutional authority of Congress, then entering into the treaty (trade agreement) and making the regulatory change is not a ceding of sovereignty, regardless of what the treaty's opponents may claim. Regards, Bob