Is it possible to be a libertarian and skeptical of globalization? (WOT)

[Person Man]

Volunteerism is a good start to protecting liberty in an age of a growing Empire of Liberty. However, its just not enough. Maybe it is the government's job to be a counter-weight to large global private estates. Maybe its time for a new federalism, one that not only institutionalizes limited government, but takes the notion of limited power further.  Instead of being concernd with the separation of powers and the limiting nature of federalism, perhaps we should be looking at the separation and competition of societal institutions. Church and State should be seperate, but they should compete. The same thing should be said about State and Estate or Industry and State. However, in a growing time of seperation of the two, there has been collusion between the two. Private and Public cooperatives, tax loop holes and corporate welfare. Perhaps we need a state that encourages competition by limiting the power of estates over individuals (unionism) and gives individuals more lifestyle and living choices (universal health care). We need stronger anti-trust laws as well. On the other hand, we need to limit government power by giving individuals the right to invest their social security the way they want to invest it.

Of all people, Huckabee was right when he said "it should be about personalization, not privatization"....but I swear, "low taxes and free trade" has become the "Non-Fat" or "Diet Coke" label of politicians. Just as the latter label encourage fat women to eat a double quarter pounder and a large vegitable oil fries as long as they order a 44 once diet coke,  the former encourages stupid people to vote for total authoritarian slave drivers so long as they promise tax cuts and free trade agreements.

[Person Man]

Volunteerism is a good start to protecting liberty in an age of a growing Empire of Liberty. However, its just not enough. Maybe it is the government's job to be a counter-weight to large global private estates. Maybe its time for a new federalism, one that not only institutionalizes limited government, but takes the notion of limited power further.  Instead of being concernd with the separation of powers and the limiting nature of federalism, perhaps we should be looking at the separation and competition of societal institutions. Church and State should be seperate, but they should compete. The same thing should be said about State and Estate or Industry and State. However, in a growing time of seperation of the two, there has been collusion between the two. Private and Public cooperatives, tax loop holes and corporate welfare. Perhaps we need a state that encourages competition by limiting the power of estates over individuals (unionism) and gives individuals more lifestyle and living choices (universal health care). We need stronger anti-trust laws as well. On the other hand, we need to limit government power by giving individuals the right to invest their social security the way they want to invest it.

I actually find a great deal of resonance with much of which you've written. I'm not a Federalist; I don't believe that liberty stops at arbitrarily-drawn subdivisions on a map, or that individual States cannot in themselves be greater violators of human liberty, and not to mention human dignity, than the Federal government itself. The segregationist South is a fine example of it. And I'm not a strict constitutional constructionist: the Constitution was, after all, a Statist 'reform' of the Articles of Confederation. My political instincts have come more from the Declaration of Independence.

That said, I'm not sure that the government can function as a counterweight to global economic interests anymore. Let us recall a few historical facts: that Franklin Roosevelt, perceived as a champion of the economically disenfranchised, was a free-trader who attacked Hoover for the signing of Smoot-Hawley and instituted free trade agreements along with his 'Good Neighbor' policy in South America. Let us recall that Harry Truman first prompted America to join the United Nations and, subsequently, NATO. And let us recall that, while NAFTA was a product of the Bush government, it was signed in the Clinton White House.

This is not to unduly attack the Democrats in a partisan fashion, but to point out that those who ascend to power on the promise of government intervention for the purpose of helping the 'little guy' have not been particularly opposed to the policies that have helped create the situation we're in today. I think that a vast majority, if not all, of the restorative measures which need to be taken have to come from the bottom-up, and any that come from the government will be both incidental and accidental on the parts of those who have the power.

I could argue that Free Trade was a Liberal idea and that Fair Trade was a conservative idea for two reasons-  Free Tradee gave consumers more choices and weakened the relative power of domestic estates over American society as a whole. and then at least Blair if not Clinton signed on to it as a way for working people to have more in common with other working people around the world in a way to again increase consumer choice and to weaken nationalist sentiment that makes unpriviledged people and people of modest means to vote against their interest.  At this point in time, its not so much as that Free Trade shouldn't be limited in as much as it just shouldn't be encouraged. There should be no new tariffs, but there should be no more  tax cuts for outsourcers, if  not the implementation of relocation fees for factories and businesses.

[Person Man]

It appears to be more libertarian to have as little of a trade policy as possible....whether or not it increases or reduces trade.