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

[Liberté]

"... we’ve always had a native suspicion of bigness of all kinds in America." - Bill Clinton

I agree with the President. From the assault by the progressive movement on Big Trusts in the early 20th century to a growing distrust of Big Government in the early 21st, one of the themes of American life has been a wariness of anything too big not to be democratically (and domestically controlled). Arguably the entire context of policy in America, from Cold War fears of international Communism to the structure of the Federal system itself, stems from this impulse.

The same holds true, I think, for our new global economy, though many people who profess to be suspicious of 'bigness' may not admit it. There has been a low-level concern about the changing nature of the international market, from a source of raw goods which nations could purchase and assemble into usable products at home to an increasingly complex and, apparently, increasingly undemocratic structure which has created a stateless class of the formerly national bourgeoisie of the nations. The globalized market is becoming, in a word, 'bigger'.

I myself struggle constantly to reconcile two conflicting impulses: a belief in the preferability of the market to any form of centralized economy and a fear that the globalized market is becoming increasingly centralized. And to this I add another concern: my complete and utter lack of any nationalistic or patriotic sentiment upon which to rhetorically ground this feeling.

It's one thing for a nationalist to be opposed to globalization. He can always kick back and say, "see? this is what happens when we don't look for our own first." And that's fine, but I don't consider myself 'one of (his) own'. Rather, I take individualism as the basis for my outlook. The market in the age of nationalism was already largely inaccessible to the common individual as long as he operated as an individual; this problem is exacerbated further under the new conditions of the world economy.

Ideally, I would like to see new initiatives to countermand the effects of globalization spring up organically from local communities. I support worker co-operatives. I support mutualism, and belong to a credit union rather than a bank. I think the collective farming now springing up in places like Detroit is admirable, and that it ought to be studied and further increased by concerned persons. I do not, above all, want the government to stupidly try to reverse a process of globalization that it has initiated; I am above all a volunteerist.

But the basic problem, and the question at the heart of this thread, remains: can a libertarian who ostensibly supports capitalism be skeptical globalization, at least as it currently exists?

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Yes, under the belief that it would lead to a reduction in human liberty. Say, for example, a globalized company was enforcing its rules on native inhabitants of a small, poor country through buying out its government, libertarians should obviously oppose the natives not having any say in their own country.

[Liberté]

Yes, under the belief that it would lead to a reduction in human liberty. Say, for example, a globalized company was enforcing its rules on native inhabitants of a small, poor country through buying out its government, libertarians should obviously oppose the natives not having any say in their own country.

I certainly agree, and on the flip-side of that I'm deeply concerned about monolithic organizations like the International Monetary Fund offering loans that countries can't afford to refuse and then demand repayment terms those nations simply can't afford.

On a more fundamental level, I'm trying to figure out a way in which individuals who feel wronged and oppressed by globalization can fight back, can at least scape out some semblance of a life without becoming a total economic pariah, while remaining true to the core tenets of libertarianism.

[President Mitt]

Yeah. I actually think it's very libertarian to oppose the centralizations of power that often come with expanding globalization. The IMF is not a force of good. I actually support the expansion of worker-cooperatives and credit unions as opposed to huge corporations and banks.

On the other hand, you cannot be a libertarian and support the state stepping in to attempt to put globalization back into a bottle.

[Liberté]

On the other hand, you cannot be a libertarian and support the state stepping in to attempt to put globalization back into a bottle.

I agree with you. That's one of the major reasons I look at libertarian support for rising paleoconservatism in America with a suspicious eye. Too often people like Pat Buchanan want to return to tariffs, or want to engage in labor-protectionism by tightening border controls, and so on. This retreat into the 19th century does nothing for the cause of freedom.

[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.

[Liberté]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I believe it is possible to be Libertarian and be anti free trade as well.

[Liberté]

I believe it is possible to be Libertarian and be anti free trade as well.

I disagree. Free trade can only be opposed when it's unfree and nationalistic trade, like that enshrined in NAFTA. Paleoconservatives are far more likely to oppose free-trade, though they tend to support protectionism, where, if I had a gun to my head and was told to pick, I'd probably choose fair trade.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I believe it is possible to be Libertarian and be anti free trade as well.

I disagree. Free trade can only be opposed when it's unfree and nationalistic trade, like that enshrined in NAFTA. Paleoconservatives are far more likely to oppose free-trade, though they tend to support protectionism, where, if I had a gun to my head and was told to pick, I'd probably choose fair trade.

You have a point. Im more anti NAFTA. I unfairly connected all free trade to a NAFTA type plan. I dont believe the government can actually force companies to keep jobs in America, but I suppose they tax the products they sell here.

[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.

[Liberté]

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

This is very much what I'm getting at. While I agree that NAFTA was created with the best of intentions (well, for the most part), and indeed probably advanced some very liberal causes, it was also supported by conservative businessmen who stood to gain from its implementation. And while its impact in the purely social realm has probably been to lessen antagonism between people of different nationalities, its economic effects more than mitigate this benefit.

I dislike corporatism and favoritism in the economy. Some others would disagree with me, but I strongly believe you cannot have a liberated society if the tax burden is lifted only for some but not for all, on the basis of policy implementation.

[TheGlobalizer]

This is very much what I'm getting at. While I agree that NAFTA was created with the best of intentions (well, for the most part), and indeed probably advanced some very liberal causes, it was also supported by conservative businessmen who stood to gain from its implementation. And while its impact in the purely social realm has probably been to lessen antagonism between people of different nationalities, its economic effects more than mitigate this benefit.

I dislike corporatism and favoritism in the economy. Some others would disagree with me, but I strongly believe you cannot have a liberated society if the tax burden is lifted only for some but not for all, on the basis of policy implementation.

While I agree, NAFTA has some very favorable downstream impacts on cross-border trade among small businesses.  They have been (in my opinion) impermissibly burdened by US border control activities, however.  (I've seen more cars with Canadian license plates than Mexican license plates in my 6 months in New Mexico -- that's just stupid.)

[Liberté]

This is very much what I'm getting at. While I agree that NAFTA was created with the best of intentions (well, for the most part), and indeed probably advanced some very liberal causes, it was also supported by conservative businessmen who stood to gain from its implementation. And while its impact in the purely social realm has probably been to lessen antagonism between people of different nationalities, its economic effects more than mitigate this benefit.

I dislike corporatism and favoritism in the economy. Some others would disagree with me, but I strongly believe you cannot have a liberated society if the tax burden is lifted only for some but not for all, on the basis of policy implementation.

While I agree, NAFTA has some very favorable downstream impacts on cross-border trade among small businesses.  They have been (in my opinion) impermissibly burdened by US border control activities, however.  (I've seen more cars with Canadian license plates than Mexican license plates in my 6 months in New Mexico -- that's just stupid.)

Doubtless I agree with you. And what ought to have been a boon for small border towns that have been drying up for decades along the Tex-Mex border instead resulted in all the benefits of trade leaving for distant ports of call while those who could do the most to revitalize the economy - Mexicans - are kept out. NAFTA was halfhearted; as the Good Book tels us:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have any proposals that could rectify this situation, especially directly along the border?

[opebo]

That's like being a masochist and being skeptical of all those nasty welts that keep showing up on your backside.  Dumb dumb dumb.

[Liberté]

That's like being a masochist and being skeptical of all those nasty welts that keep showing up on your backside.  Dumb dumb dumb.

Well, it was government policy that initiated the current epoch of globalization, which I consider to have entered full-force with the end of the Cold War and to have accelerated under Clinton. It was a concerted effort; legislation was passed and laws were signed to that end.

[opebo]

That's like being a masochist and being skeptical of all those nasty welts that keep showing up on your backside.  Dumb dumb dumb.

Well, it was government policy that initiated the current epoch of globalization, which I consider to have entered full-force with the end of the Cold War and to have accelerated under Clinton. It was a concerted effort; legislation was passed and laws were signed to that end.

Precisely.  So become a socialist and oppose capitalism and trade.

[Liberté]

That's like being a masochist and being skeptical of all those nasty welts that keep showing up on your backside.  Dumb dumb dumb.

Well, it was government policy that initiated the current epoch of globalization, which I consider to have entered full-force with the end of the Cold War and to have accelerated under Clinton. It was a concerted effort; legislation was passed and laws were signed to that end.

Precisely.  So become a socialist and oppose capitalism and trade.

I am a socialist. I oppose capitalism. I do not, however, oppose trade.

[opebo]

I am a socialist. I oppose capitalism. I do not, however, oppose trade.

Ok, now ditch the 'libertarianism', and you'll be on the right track.

[TheGlobalizer]

Do you have any proposals that could rectify this situation, especially directly along the border?

The biggest thing, from what I've seen (I'm not a small business owner) is relaxing some of the strange reasons the US has thrown up for limiting access to the US roads by Mexican trucks.  It comes off to me as overt protectionism.  For instance, despite NAFTA's provision for free movement of goods in trade, a Mexican company cannot deliver its goods directly to a city such as Albuquerque without using intermediaries or US trucks.  This policy does not stop US-owned maquiladoras from engaging in their sweatshopping, but it does limit Mexican businesses from being able to freely sell across the border, which was, by the way, the whole effing point (for Mexico, anyway).

That a lot of Mexican goods are still sold in Albuquerque speaks to the cost benefits of allowing Mexican goods into the US.

(Personally, by the way, I'd like to pay less for my imported Mexican Coca-Colas.  They taste infinitely better than the US-produced Cokes that use corn-subsidy-goo instead of pure sugar.)

[phk]

Yes.

However, being libertarian and opposing free trade is not consistent.

[Liberté]

The biggest thing, from what I've seen (I'm not a small business owner) is relaxing some of the strange reasons the US has thrown up for limiting access to the US roads by Mexican trucks.  It comes off to me as overt protectionism.  For instance, despite NAFTA's provision for free movement of goods in trade, a Mexican company cannot deliver its goods directly to a city such as Albuquerque without using intermediaries or US trucks.  This policy does not stop US-owned maquiladoras from engaging in their sweatshopping, but it does limit Mexican businesses from being able to freely sell across the border, which was, by the way, the whole effing point (for Mexico, anyway).

I agree. And I would add that it makes sense to me (for a right-libertarian at least, even though I wouldn't disagree with the analysis) to include the free movement of wage workers under the descriptor of "goods in trade". What I think a lot of people don't understand is that labor is a commodity like any other under the present system, but it's treated as something special - not because it's held in high regard by those who do so, but for the base motive of not wanting to compete with other forms of the good from other places.

That would solve much of the problem, I agree, especially in those dusty south Texas border towns. A broader concern, however, is this: a lot of native workers are negatively impacted by high migration levels into their areas, because they have not learned the skills necessary to compete. It's these people I think would benefit most from my 'co-operative individualism', as it would help to insulate them from the current of cultural and economic change long enough to adjust themselves to it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed. My girlfriend is Puerto Rican, but they do their Coke the exact same way. And it's amazing.

[Liberté]

Yes.

However, being libertarian and opposing free trade is not consistent.

I'd say it depends on whether you support free trade - which extends to, encompasses and includes some forms of non-reciprocal 'trading' - or what I consider to be our current system of managed trade. I'm a free trader who opposes NAFTA to the core.

[Lambsbread]

Depending.