WHAT CHANGE???

[IndieVisible]

I am so tired and bored of this election and it's candidates. I supported Obama since the NH Debates, but I gotta be honest, I'm not so sure any more. I am sick of him already before he is elected. He takes about change but all I see is more of the same old same old. He has been compared to John F. Kennedy which should be considered blasphameous! He is no Kennedy! Not even close. He has used MLK which is also nothing but a political topping. In short, he is all talk, and by now I do not even consider him a very good talker!

Not that McCain is any better, he is not. He is old, forgetful, and gets angry fast. He may not even make it in to his second term! Once a Maverick, now a lap dog for the conservatives.

Whats really amazing is the VP's are more interesting then the main candidates for me! It should not be that way! Yet it is. Biden has more experience then any candidate. Palin is the prettiest, youngest, and closest to real Americans. WHat to do what to do? I am preplexed.

I will not be terribly disapointed no matter who wins, not a whole lot of difference here, not a whole lot of "change". We have a Liberal Conservative verses a Conservative Liberal! Where is the change?

I am concerned that if Obama loses people will say it's because he was black. Utter bullshit, but we know we will hear it! If Obama loses it's because most people did not buy in to his program. Not because he was black. This should be the Dems Election Year! Every one is sick of Republicans! YET the polls show them about even. Why is that? May be because a lot of people like me, are not seeing any real change from either party! More of the same old same old!

I am not sure if I will vote for Obama. I have watched him turn in to a certified whimp before my eyes. I can not support a whimp for President. But no matter who wins, there will be little change if any. At this point I think I would feel better if Obama and Biden switched spots so the ticket maked more since, Biden/Obama. I may vote for McCain/Palin. Just not so sure or excited any more!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Sad situation isn't it Indie?

:sadly:

[ECW]

Joe Biden wouldn't carry Delaware if they switched spots but there is a genuine feeling about Obama all over the place. Even here in Texas I hear people are excited about what he will bring to the job. You may think he's turned into a wimp but have you watched his stump speech lately? That's no JFK but it's anything but wimpy. We already had a Wimp for president and he got his ass beat by Clinton.

[Osborn F. Enready]

How is changing law through redefinition, and not going through the proper constitutional process NOT wimpy?

Its admission of failure, and a clear sign that criminality is accepted among the sheeple.

[william the wierd]

Obama is beginning to fade rapidly. A 3 point bounce coming out of a convention (Rasmussin) is pathetic and no poll shows anything like the kind of a bounce that would be expected. McCain is going to get some bounce too but vote suppression of the opponent's base will be the goal this election. A lot of people will tune out.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I am so tired and bored of this election and it's candidates. I supported Obama since the NH Debates, but I gotta be honest, I'm not so sure any more. I am sick of him already before he is elected. He takes about change but all I see is more of the same old same old. He has been compared to John F. Kennedy which should be considered blasphameous! He is no Kennedy! Not even close. He has used MLK which is also nothing but a political topping. In short, he is all talk, and by now I do not even consider him a very good talker!

Not that McCain is any better, he is not. He is old, forgetful, and gets angry fast. He may not even make it in to his second term! Once a Maverick, now a lap dog for the conservatives.

Whats really amazing is the VP's are more interesting then the main candidates for me! It should not be that way! Yet it is. Biden has more experience then any candidate. Palin is the prettiest, youngest, and closest to real Americans. WHat to do what to do? I am preplexed.

I will not be terribly disapointed no matter who wins, not a whole lot of difference here, not a whole lot of "change". We have a Liberal Conservative verses a Conservative Liberal! Where is the change?

I am concerned that if Obama loses people will say it's because he was black. Utter bullshit, but we know we will hear it! If Obama loses it's because most people did not buy in to his program. Not because he was black. This should be the Dems Election Year! Every one is sick of Republicans! YET the polls show them about even. Why is that? May be because a lot of people like me, are not seeing any real change from either party! More of the same old same old!

I am not sure if I will vote for Obama. I have watched him turn in to a certified whimp before my eyes. I can not support a whimp for President. But no matter who wins, there will be little change if any. At this point I think I would feel better if Obama and Biden switched spots so the ticket maked more since, Biden/Obama. I may vote for McCain/Palin. Just not so sure or excited any more!

Here's what you should do Indy.

Vote late !!!

If your state is overwhelming party X and your vote won't help your party Y, or if you state
is Overwhelming Party Y and 1 vote is not going to make a difference to party X then you
should vote for a candidate that you think is best! Or one that has a chance of Challenging
the REPS&DEMS!

This will do two things "FOR AMERICA" :
1) As Emerging parties get more support the other parties will take note of what the new parties stand for and why more Americans are supporting them. They might change their corrupt ways if they see they are loosing their Monopoly !

2) If you new Candidate gets enough support they will be able to get funding to champagne
harder in next election! Thus putting more pressure on the REPS&DEMS to actually do a
good Job !

So if you vote late you will be able to see how your state has voted and chances are the
decision of who all your states E.C. vote will have already been made.

[Leslie]

Obama is beginning to fade rapidly. A 3 point bounce coming out of a convention (Rasmussin) is pathetic and no poll shows anything like the kind of a bounce that would be expected. McCain is going to get some bounce too but vote suppression of the opponent's base will be the goal this election. A lot of people will tune out.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.

GallupDaily (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx)

[brien]

The only change coming is the paltry few pennies you will get back when you are forced to eat at McDonalds.

Polls seem to be increasingly less reliable:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1060

Criticism of polling is nothing new, according to Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup Poll. "We have seen polls become matters of controversy in each election, in some more than others. It may be accelerated this year because the election is particularly intense. Our data show people feel strongly - on either side - about this race, and because it is so close, there may be higher sensitivity to all kinds of information."


Newport says pollsters have been struggling against declining response rates for a number of years, in part because of new technology. Caller-ID, cell phone-only homes and a general reluctance by potential respondents to answer any calls after years of intrusion by telemarketers are all obstacles to an accurate, randomized poll. "The work has become more challenging, no question about that. So far we think we are able to do good, valid, projectable polls and we continue to monitor these changes."


The biggest problem with most forecasting is that people rely too heavily on their own judgment and experience, he says, adding that in many cases people turn to polls or other forms of forecasting merely to support the view they have already formulated.

************************************************** ****************

And particularly in this race we see some doubt in polls because of race issue:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/08/12/1742524-race-questions-cast-doubt-on-presidential-polls

Now it's a quarter of a century later, and the man everyone's talking about is Barack Obama, the Illinois senator holding a slim lead in many polls. But can the polls be trusted? A central question about race and politics hasn't changed since 1984: Do white people lie — to pollsters or even to themselves — about their willingness to vote for black candidates?

In the not-so-distant past, the consensus was a clear yes. Today, however, there is widespread disagreement about whether Obama is subject to the predicament known as the Wilder or Bradley Effect — whether in the privacy of the voting booth, white people will actually pull the lever for the first black man to come within shouting distance of the presidency.

Given that surveys can have trouble uncovering the truth about many things besides race, plus the massive technological, demographic and cultural changes in play, this question is contributing to an almost unprecedented air of uncertainty surrounding this year's polls.

In 1989, Wilder polled as many as 15 points ahead in the days before the election for Virginia governor, but squeaked into office by a minuscule 6,700 votes. David Dinkins had a similar experience that year, when he became New York City's first black mayor. And the phenomenon was first noted in 1982, when Tom Bradley endured a stunning defeat in the California governor's race after exit polls indicated he was the winner.

The reason for these disparities? A significant amount of white people did not admit that race played a role in their voting decision, pollsters and academics say. Another factor: When the person asking the questions was black, respondents were more likely to say they favored the black candidate.

In the recent Democratic primary, exit polls in 28 states overstated Obama's actual share of the final vote.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, doesn't think people are lying to pollsters today about their support for Obama, "because I don't think there's a lot of stigma in saying you're voting for John McCain." Kohut said it's not like polls are asking, "Do you want to vote for the white guy or the black guy?"

But he did see potential for error based on the people who decline to participate in polls, whom he describes as largely lower-income whites more likely than the population at large to have racially intolerant views.

"The real frailty of our polls is that we get very high refusal rates, and we survive because the people who we interview are like the people who we don't interview on most things," Kohut said. "(Racism) is not one of them."

So are current polls accurate? "I don't know," Kohut said, "and to be honest with you, this is something every pollster I know is concerned about."


The racial pendulum may even have swung back the other way, said Anthony G. Greenwald, a psychology professor at the University of Washington, citing a "reverse Bradley Effect" during the Democratic primary: In states with larger black populations, such as Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia, Obama got more votes than polls predicted.

Like Kohut, Greenwald doesn't think people are deliberately lying in polls. But he does see potential for polling errors due to undecided white voters overstating their support for Obama or choosing McCain at the last minute, and the influence of "racial attitudes and stereotypes that people in many cases are not aware they have."

Many pollsters are trying to adjust their methods to account for these unprecedented variables. It's not easy, however, to solve these new problems in the heat of a tight presidential race.

"I don't think anyone is correct or incorrect, including me," Greenwald said of the current poll numbers. "To get to the heart of that, you'd have to do the kinds of research that haven't been done."

The Obama campaign declined to comment on how it conducts its polling. The McCain campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Matthew Dowd, an ABC News commentator and former chief strategist for President Bush's 2004 campaign, expects the Wilder Effect to be a "small factor" in November. "I wouldn't want to be Barack Obama and up two points going into Election Day," he said.

"My guess is that (the Obama campaign) understands that and they know it's not enough to be ahead," Dowd said. "They have to be ahead by a lot."


************************************************** *****************

The last statement says it all.

"They have to be ahead by a lot."

[Leslie]

nevermind :lol

[william the wierd]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.

GallupDaily (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx)
If you go state by state McCain is leading by single digits in the states that Zogby calls for him, Obama leads by double digits in states called for him and with a single digit lead nationwide Obama is a regional candidate. Wherever there are 3rd party candidates on the ballot they are attracting disgruntled democrats, even Barr and Baldwin are getting their support mostly from Dem voters. After the Republican convention ends and the kid gloves come off special interests will take this campaign to levels of negativity never seen before so this trend is likely to take off even further. This entry into the dark side is going to be nasty enough to reduce voter turnout to below 30% and almost all of it will come out of the hide of the majors with the Dems suffering the most defections. Obama is on the verge of losing NH, it doesn't get much worse for a Dem than that.

[theoutsider]

As an outsider, I would only say that an Obama win would mean the beginning of a change in perception of how Americans are viewed. Presidents, leaders of nations are meant to be intellectual - decision making without philosophical grounding ends up being a bit of a gamble. Frankly, I don't see much intellect in your great war hero. Obama will be a disappointment if you're convinced - but the way I see it - Obama brings a message, McCain brings the end of the world as we know it. Incidentally, I'm not sure if most of you Americans understand just how badly screwed your economy is. I'm no liberal in terms of economic policy, but fundamentally you're playing a game which ends once monetary policy is no longer an instrument of inducing economic activity - and you're not too far from that point.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Interesting POV Outsider.

I can't vote for either major parties candidate, and will be voting 3rd party.

[theoutsider]

Interesting POV Outsider.

I can't vote for either major parties candidate, and will be voting 3rd party.

While individuals should of course choose a nominee of their liking, I can't help but think that's a meaningless approach in the current context (when the stakes are as high as they are at this point of time).

[Osborn F. Enready]

theoutsider said:
While individuals should of course choose a nominee of their liking, I can't help but think that's a meaningless approach in the current context (when the stakes are as high as they are at this point of time).

The only way to bring about change is to be part of it.....

Obamas message of change is unconstitutional, and goes against the individual rights Americans have fought since the revolution to preserve.

There is no good reason, EVER, to back unconstitutional change.

[william the wierd]

As an outsider, I would only say that an Obama win would mean the beginning of a change in perception of how Americans are viewed. Presidents, leaders of nations are meant to be intellectual - decision making without philosophical grounding ends up being a bit of a gamble. Frankly, I don't see much intellect in your great war hero. Obama will be a disappointment if you're convinced - but the way I see it - Obama brings a message, McCain brings the end of the world as we know it. Incidentally, I'm not sure if most of you Americans understand just how badly screwed your economy is. I'm no liberal in terms of economic policy, but fundamentally you're playing a game which ends once monetary policy is no longer an instrument of inducing economic activity - and you're not too far from that point.
Oh the economy is definitely screwed:
the stock market was overvalued in 1992 and began to exceed GDP in market valuation in 1995.
less than a 1/3 of homeowners will weather the housing bust.
the banking and insurance industries are dealing with three times the leverage normally permitted by law due to investment writedowns.

However Obama will worsen the international problems of the US:
Lack of direct representation of the American people in international bodies will worsen under Obama and exactly this problem led to the revolution against the British Empire. McCain is no major improvement in this area.
Unwanted Imperium. McCain is worse in this area but Obama is only slightly behind.

So if you are claiming both major candidates are on the glide path to revolution and/or disintegration of the union you are right. If you are not claiming that you are uninformed. Currently Obama's strength is concentrated in a very few states with a fairly high probability that he will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college vote in "flyover" country which contain the majority of troops and the least exposure to the housing bust.
Obama is an advocate of colonial government.
McCain is a political hack.
3rd party or giving up are the options.

[theoutsider]

Oh the economy is definitely screwed:
the stock market was overvalued in 1992 and began to exceed GDP in market valuation in 1995.
less than a 1/3 of homeowners will weather the housing bust.
the banking and insurance industries are dealing with three times the leverage normally permitted by law due to investment writedowns.

However Obama will worsen the international problems of the US:
Lack of direct representation of the American people in international bodies will worsen under Obama and exactly this problem led to the revolution against the British Empire. McCain is no major improvement in this area.
Unwanted Imperium. McCain is worse in this area but Obama is only slightly behind.

So if you are claiming both major candidates are on the glide path to revolution and/or disintegration of the union you are right. If you are not claiming that you are uninformed. Currently Obama's strength is concentrated in a very few states with a fairly high probability that he will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college vote in "flyover" country which contain the majority of troops and the least exposure to the housing bust.
Obama is an advocate of colonial government.
McCain is a political hack.
3rd party or giving up are the options.

Good to see an informed economic opinion in the mix. That Obama would not resurrect the economy - I agree with. Neither would McCain.

Regarding standing in the world - let me just base my post on what I believe to be true in terms of perceptions, not necessarily my own standpoint. International organizations became meaningless following the Bush response to 9/11. The fact that "justice" has no meaning in American foreign policy has become an opinion shared by the middle classes across the globe, while in the Clinton years that was an opinion shared only by the well-informed. To my mind, Obama holds the ability to put a lot of pretty words on his hypocritical actions and in a world where perceptions are created by the media, that in itself is an important facet.

I'm curious here - as a potentially less or ill-informed outsider. When you folks talk about 3rd party - I assume you're talking Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party? In which case, my biggest question is how does the transition work, and after all the cuts in government spending - what will make america competitive in the global marketplace? If you remove government from bringing america trade agreements, and trade does become truly free - I'm not sure how that would work for the US.

[theoutsider]

The only way to bring about change is to be part of it.....

Obamas message of change is unconstitutional, and goes against the individual rights Americans have fought since the revolution to preserve.

There is no good reason, EVER, to back unconstitutional change.

Are we talking guns here or is there something more profound that I've missed out on? Again, as an outsider - I think your constitution is fantastic, but when it comes to guns - the rest of the world has far fewer and we're broadly speaking safer for it. Please do enlighten me if you're on about something different.

[Osborn F. Enready]

the Outsider said:
I'm curious here - as a potentially less or ill-informed outsider. When you folks talk about 3rd party - I assume you're talking Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party? In which case, my biggest question is how does the transition work, and after all the cuts in government spending - what will make america competitive in the global marketplace? If you remove government from bringing america trade agreements, and trade does become truly free - I'm not sure how that would work for the US.

Great reply.

I would argue that Bob Barrs claimed positions and intent will revolve around making sensible cutbacks through audit and stopping the hiring process in government.... becoming more efficient, rejecting unconstitutional legislation that drives up costs in government, etc.

I think Barr recognizes somewhat that there is a transition process in going from our over-controlled economy to a free-trade economy that was neglected under Bush... which directly put U.S. workers at risk if not out of work all together in many areas. I think Barr has the sense to use "individual rights" as the bargaining chip for trade agreements, and that would benefit multiple nations, especially China and Indias "people" (not so much their government) in the long run, while again bringing up American labor numbers and net incomes.

Our trade policy right now is atrocious, as is our business tax and individual tax burden, so its going to take a lot of work to equalize the massive imbalance that exists currently. I do think Barr has the most sensible plan, outside of Ron Paul, in how to get there.


Our outsourcing of labor wouldn't have been bad if slowed through talks with China and India, making individual rights negotiations and equalization (by bringing them to more of standard to U.S. law, regarding legal access, labor rights, etc) an INCREMENTAL and NECESSARY requirement of free trade.

Free markets require a level playing field established around individuals having equal access to that market and equal labor rights under law, and in China and India right now, that just isn't the case.

[theoutsider]

Great reply.

I would argue that Bob Barrs claimed positions and intent will revolve around making sensible cutbacks through audit and stopping the hiring process in government.... becoming more efficient, rejecting unconstitutional legislation that drives up costs in government, etc.

I think Barr recognizes somewhat that there is a transition process in going from our over-controlled economy to a free-trade economy that was neglected under Bush... which directly put U.S. workers at risk if not out of work all together in many areas. I think Barr has the sense to use "individual rights" as the bargaining chip for trade agreements, and that would benefit multiple nations, especially China and Indias "people" (not so much their government) in the long run, while again bringing up American labor numbers and net incomes.

Our trade policy right now is atrocious, as is our business tax and individual tax burden, so its going to take a lot of work to equalize the massive imbalance that exists currently. I do think Barr has the most sensible plan, outside of Ron Paul, in how to get there.


Our outsourcing of labor wouldn't have been bad if slowed through talks with China and India, making individual rights negotiations and equalization (by bringing them to more of standard to U.S. law, regarding legal access, labor rights, etc) an INCREMENTAL and NECESSARY requirement of free trade.

Free markets require a level playing field established around individuals having equal access to that market and equal labor rights under law, and in China and India right now, that just isn't the case.

Interesting stuff. While I agree with an argument that a libertarian state would lead to increases in efficiency, two questions come to mind instantly.

1. Free trade theory from the point of view of developed countries depends entirely on the notion that efficiency gains in the developed world will within certain sectors outweigh the differences in income level, in order to maintain the competitive status of developed countries when competing with the developing world (and its lower wages). That theory should suggest that high-tech sectors become the domain of the developed world, while the developing world produces the world's textiles and labour intensive products. However, that theory seems way off the mark - India is fast becoming the world's IT hub/back office, while i-pods are produced in China! Where does the developed world gain its competitive edge in a world with fair and free trade agreements...? I can see plenty of domestic employment continuing, but I'm not sure what the US would gain from trade and its abundantly clear that the notion of extending justice to the planet simply isn't a powerful ideal in current american political thought. So I'm a bit confused with where this leads?

2. Regarding bringing in individual rights negotiations and equalization - in principle is this libertarian? I'm a bit confused - because on one hand you could argue it is, but on the other it is imposing your idea of liberty on other nations, which is not libertarian. Also, isn't this part of Obama's plans on free-trade?

As an aside, I do know a family that exports textiles to the United States from India and I understand there has been a strong behind the scenes move in terms of ensuring companies are compliant with american labour laws (or equivalent labour laws) for them to be able to export goods to the united states... something that didn't exist 6 months ago. This seems most unlike Bush.

Again, I sense I have some of this backwards. Libertarian thought in general has a fair few streams and I'm not sure I have a coherent understanding of Barr's version of it.

[william the wierd]

Interesting stuff. While I agree with an argument that a libertarian state would lead to increases in efficiency, two questions come to mind instantly.

1. Free trade theory from the point of view of developed countries depends entirely on the notion that efficiency gains in the developed world will within certain sectors outweigh the differences in income level, in order to maintain the competitive status of developed countries when competing with the developing world (and its lower wages). That theory should suggest that high-tech sectors become the domain of the developed world, while the developing world produces the world's textiles and labour intensive products. However, that theory seems way off the mark - India is fast becoming the world's IT hub/back office, while i-pods are produced in China! Where does the developed world gain its competitive edge in a world with fair and free trade agreements...? I can see plenty of domestic employment continuing, but I'm not sure what the US would gain from trade and its abundantly clear that the notion of extending justice to the planet simply isn't a powerful ideal in current american political thought. So I'm a bit confused with where this leads?

2. Regarding bringing in individual rights negotiations and equalization - in principle is this libertarian? I'm a bit confused - because on one hand you could argue it is, but on the other it is imposing your idea of liberty on other nations, which is not libertarian. Also, isn't this part of Obama's plans on free-trade?

As an aside, I do know a family that exports textiles to the United States from India and I understand there has been a strong behind the scenes move in terms of ensuring companies are compliant with american labour laws (or equivalent labour laws) for them to be able to export goods to the united states... something that didn't exist 6 months ago. This seems most unlike Bush.

Again, I sense I have some of this backwards. Libertarian thought in general has a fair few streams and I'm not sure I have a coherent understanding of Barr's version of it.
I'm not sure Barr has a Libertarian vision, more of a Goldwater/Ron Paul Republican view. As a Social Darwinist who is opposed to eugenics (inadequate data base for the present and no data base on the future in regards to genes and environmental challenges.) I support Phillies in his run with the Boston Tea Party in MA and NH. I think the anarchists are needed to keep the main libertarian movement from selling out even though personally I find the idea of limited constitutional government a least evil.

As to income levels I want specie money only and as long as it is too expensive to invade from anywhere but Canada and Mexico and the US army can stop attacks from there US incomes relative to the rest of the world are a non-factor. This "We're #1" egoruptcy of the past 3/4 of a century is for the birds. As to foreign labor laws it's none of our damn business so long as it does not involve slave labor or theft. Where those principles are violated, importation of goods and services produced by such crimes should be embargoed. But citizens of other countries have just as much right to be stupid or bright as we enjoy. If China and/or India surpass us in per capita GDP and don't bother us then go China and go India.

[Osborn F. Enready]

The Outsider said:
Are we talking guns here or is there something more profound that I've missed out on?

The point is made using the 2nd amendment (guns), but the real issue is that both major political parties are redefining terms, as opposed to going through the required constitutional process to change RIGHTS, which are not laws, but what limits laws.

Both parties are using "selective interpretation" to dismantle original intent, and redefine recognized, enumerated, unalienable rights into government granted entitlements.

The reason we have a 2nd amendment is to prevent this from happening, should all other methods fail. (redress of grievance, ballot box, judicial review of bad law, etc.)

The United States is one of the few nations with a recognized unalienable right to own arms, to prevent abuse by government, repel foreign or domestic unjust force, and for national defense, though we have a standing army, and an active reserve.

As far as gun control leading to "less crime", well that is simply provably wrong.

the Outsider said:
Again, as an outsider - I think your constitution is fantastic, but when it comes to guns - the rest of the world has far fewer and we're broadly speaking safer for it. Please do enlighten me if you're on about something different.

I don't want to drag this thread into a gun control debate, but I would love to hear your input in the already existing gun threads if you wish to participate.

the Outsider said:
Interesting stuff. While I agree with an argument that a libertarian state would lead to increases in efficiency, two questions come to mind instantly.

1. Free trade theory from the point of view of developed countries depends entirely on the notion that efficiency gains in the developed world will within certain sectors outweigh the differences in income level, in order to maintain the competitive status of developed countries when competing with the developing world (and its lower wages). That theory should suggest that high-tech sectors become the domain of the developed world, while the developing world produces the world's textiles and labour intensive products. However, that theory seems way off the mark - India is fast becoming the world's IT hub/back office, while i-pods are produced in China! Where does the developed world gain its competitive edge in a world with fair and free trade agreements...?

I would argue the only reason China and India are booming, is because nations are allowing them to enter their national markets, without first assuring equal legal access to those who make up the market. That alone has skewed the market and allowed China and India a rare chance to grossly exploit their laborers who have little to no rights at all, as well as business owners to profit from that exploitation. If market access were equalized (which it has to be in order to be a truly free market) this imbalance would not exist in the ratios we see now, I would argue. The profitability of exploiting labor would dissappear if labor rights were equalized, and over time this gap will close and once again, manufacturers would benefit by using workforces and distributors as close to the market they are competing in as possible, to avoide losses in shipping raw products and finished goods.

For example.... Property rights in the United States are an individual right with solid protections, whereas China, much like Venezuela, with no solid property rights, are open to nationalization at any time, rendering huge loss to investors willing to gamble in the first place.

Individual rights are a necessity in a free market.... for it to actually be a free market.
If governments are the ones controlling the market (china for example), while individuals are kept out or only allowed "approved" deals by government, private investment is always "able" to be consumed by government removal of their right to property or business ownership or profit. (as seen in venezuela under Hugo Chavez)

the Outsider said:
I can see plenty of domestic employment continuing, but I'm not sure what the US would gain from trade and its abundantly clear that the notion of extending justice to the planet simply isn't a powerful ideal in current american political thought. So I'm a bit confused with where this leads?

What we would gain by trade is a variety of goods and services from food to luxury goods, at lower prices than if everything were grown, manufactured here.
What we would gain by making trade deals dependent on the passage of individual rights protections, would be a level playing field in which a truly free market could be enjoyed with equal protections under the law in all participating nations, and isolation of those who refuse to recognize basic individual rights and legal protections. This would help equalize the labor, production, health and safety issues among the trading nations and make competition more productive, since all would be held to the same bar of legality, instead of 15 different bars creating a skewed and often viciously abrubt change in economy, living conditions, etc when one or two nations get a huge imbalance that either aids, or removes any necessity to operate there.

the Outsider said:
2. Regarding bringing in individual rights negotiations and equalization - in principle is this libertarian?

Depends on the libertarian you ask.

What is a free market? That is the question to ask.

My answer to that question is this:

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are logical corollaries.

In order to have a free market, is to have a market where no man or group of men can use physical force or coercion against anyone, economic power can only be achieved by voluntary means.

Obviously, China, India, Venezuela, etc... don't meet up to those standards, therefore to trade with those nations before assuring these basic protections, a free market cannot exist within them, or outside of them IF the system TRADES WITH THEM.

CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, etc.... far from what is required to maintain a free market, and should not be called free trade as it is a play on words to express something that does not really exist in the spoken cases.

the Outsider said:
I'm a bit confused - because on one hand you could argue it is, but on the other it is imposing your idea of liberty on other nations, which is not libertarian.

The only imposition is to accept, or deny it. We are not forcing people to trade with us, only saying that if you DO agree to trade with us, you must equalize your laws to allow free market necessities.

By allowing nations who exploit and deprive their citizens of basic individual rights, we are in essence, destablizing and removing OUR OWN free market by lowering the competitive standards, access to law, and the very necessities of a free market.

the Outsider said:
As an aside, I do know a family that exports textiles to the United States from India and I understand there has been a strong behind the scenes move in terms of ensuring companies are compliant with american labour laws (or equivalent labour laws) for them to be able to export goods to the united states... something that didn't exist 6 months ago. This seems most unlike Bush.

It does indeed, and I am betting the pressure is coming from the OBVIOUS imbalances that are occurring from opening trade BEFORE assuring such things were in place.

the Outsider said:
Again, I sense I have some of this backwards. Libertarian thought in general has a fair few streams and I'm not sure I have a coherent understanding of Barr's version of it.

I really don't feel comfortable speaking for Barr, or the Libertarian Party to be honest.

I am non-partisan, but usually vote libertarian based on the platform values of individual rights FIRST, Constitutional process SECOND, everything else third.

Let me know if I failed to address anything well enough.