Kicking out the Paulites

Eric Golub recommends kicking Ron Paul’s supporters out of the Republican Convention:

The following words accurately describe the overwhelming majority of Ron Paul supporters.

“I will not vote for anybody other than Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is the same as Barack Obama. No to Obamney. Ron Paul or nobody. Maybe Gary Johnson, but not Mitt Romney under any circumstances.”

Ron Paul supporters have decided to hold a Libertarian lovefest in Tampa, Florida, on the days directly preceding the GOP Convention. They have every right to do this, and Republicans should have zero objections to them expressing themselves in the equivalent of the town square. This is what democracy is all about. If they have the permits in order, let them protest. If the GOP tries to shut this event down, well that would be morally wrong.

However, their event ends on August 26th. The GOP Convention begins on August 27th. The GOP Convention is a Republican Convention. It is a Mitt Romney Convention. It is not a Ron Paul or Libertarian Convention. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable at this point to ban Ron Paul supporters from the GOP Convention.

That’s right. An outright ban on their presence is the only way to prevent the event from turning into a debacle. There is no legitimate reason at this point for them to be there.

That’s perfectly fine with me. Kick them out, by all means. I’ll just make one request. After putting on your magic underwear and getting down at your Mitt Romney convention, don’t come crying back to those Ron Paul supporters begging for their votes in late October because it is THE MOSTEST IMPORTANTEST ELECTION EVAHHHHH!!!!

I could not possibly care less if Obama wins or if Romney wins. Based on the last three years, I would guess that Obama would actually do less damage since the Republicans in Congress will at least put up the occasional show of resistance to his leftward moves, whereas they will support Romney’s. I have to seriously question the intelligence of any conservative who intends to vote for Romney, as the only argument that made even a remote amount of sense, the Supreme Court Appointment argument, has been permanently destroyed by Chief Justice Roberts.

By all means, the Republicans should kick out the libertarians, the constitutionalists, the nationalists, and the fiscally sane. I think it would be fantastic. It’s long past time they joined a party genuinely devoted to freedom, the principles of the Founding Fathers, and the American national interest anyhow.

But what is it with neocons and their obsession with playing ideological police and kicking people out of organizations, movements, and political parties? Buckley did it, Lowry did it, and here this Golub is calling for it. It is increasingly apparent that permitting people who have ideologically “seen the light” at some point in their lives to assume positions of influence in their new party is a tremendously bad idea. If you were ever a Democrat, or worse, a Trotskyite or Socialist, that’s great if you eventually came to your senses and moved rightward. But you should not be permitted any leadership position or provided a voice in the right-wing media. After all, why on Earth should anyone else on the Right, who was never dumb enough to fall for any left-wing nonsense in the first place, pay your belatedly sane opinion any attention whatsoever?

Mailvox: the wages of stupidity

The wages of sin are death. The wages of stupidity are bankruptcy. NW writes to remind me of my prediction of the fatal consequences that result when a church leader parts company with the Bible in favor of the current worldly consensus:

Grace Community United Church of Christ will close its doors this weekend, but the pastor who says his decision to publicly support gay-marriage rights unwittingly thrust it on a path toward financial ruin plans to find a new home for his small congregation….

White said his church’s financial problems started in 2005 after he voted to support same-sex marriage at the United Church of Christ’s national synod. Attendance in the pews immediately dropped off the next week, and soon, three-fourths of his sizable congregation was gone. The departures took a financial toll, so the church took out a $150,000 loan in April 2007 to pay its bills, using the church building as collateral. The ministry owned the structure and owed no debt on the building at the time.

The high-interest loan was trouble from the start, and it was quickly acquired by Shrader and MS Properties. The church fell behind on payments, and interest and penalties began piling on, increasing the debt far beyond the initial principal. A settlement agreement called for the church to pay back $175,000 in May or $200,000 by the end of June.

Far too many members of the organized churches believe that the institutions themselves are the Church. They are not, and the true Church cannot compromise with abomination. Christianity cannot condone homogamy any more than it can condone ritual gang rape or child sacrifice. And when it purports to do so, it ceases to be Christianity.

It is fascinating, is it not, that this wolf in sheep’s clothing has no regrets about destroying his church’s solvency and driving off most of the congregation.

Euro 2012: avanti Azzurri

I’m not sure which I enjoy more about the Euros and World Cup. The irrational English pre-tournament optimism, followed inevitably by equally ludicrous despair, or the overexuberance with which the Italians always greet success in international calcio. Keep in mind that despite their great joy over the nominal upset, the Italians have NEVER lost to the Germans in a major tournament.

“It was a masterpiece of a game. One perfect first half, which even everyone who claimed that Balotelli could not be a center forward or that Prandelli had some problems could see. And instead, the manager got nothing wrong: for example, the move of Balzaretti to the right was inspired. The thing that left everyone amazed was in what little time Prandelli succeeded to make a team out of a group of excellent players with four stars, Balotelli, Pirlo, De Rossi and Buffon. In this brief period, he put Italy on display with an aggressive and intelligent soccer that has produced great games. The difference with Spain-Portugal was before the eyes of everyone: Italy-Germany was enthusiastic and beautiful, played by the Azzurri against a mighty squad that was nevertheless annihilated by the play of Italy. The work of the manager, the intelligence of the players, and the brilliance of Pirlo and Balotelli created an extraordinary miracle. Only Italy has displayed the true soccer to the Europeans: the victory against Ireland was mitigated by the modest skills of the adversary, but the test of the Germans has silenced everyone. The final with Spain will obviously be a very difficult game, but one can say that Prandelli and the players have already won Euro 2012. An even more enthusiastic success cannot be anticipated by anyone: no one thought the manager had the capability to make the national team play this way.

A discourse on the obvious merits of the absolute protagonist of the semifinal with Germany: what can one say about Balotelli? One way is to think about his problematic attitude, another puts him in discussion as a player. Ballotelli is a player can do anything and play in any role, from the midfield to striker: aside from his goals, he plays well, he is unpredictable and concrete, he has everything to be a man of grand destiny. And also – I repeat – Pirlo, De Rossi, and Buffon always merit mention, even though it is necessary to name everyone. However, I mention these names in particular to repeat that Italy is a grand team with four players that have made the difference.

One note in this game against the Germans that merits mention is also Cassano, for his play, for the extraordinary assist on the occasion of the first goal: Antonio held onto the ball beautifully and Prandelli did well to put him on the point. The real surprise is truly the manager, who did not put a foot wrong, and above all, showed us the human rapport he installed in the players while succeeding by making all the right player selections and winning moves.”

His story is a touching tribute to humanity regardless of how one looks at it, but Mario Balotelli also illustrates that true integration into a foreign culture is at least partially possible in some circumstances, as the first thing that “the Italian boy with the dark skin”, as La Repubblica calls him, did after his match of a lifetime was to run into the stands to the mother who adopted him at the age of two.

“The most beautiful joy was to embrace Mamma Silvia. I scored the two goals for her,” said Mario after the game. “Those goals were for her. In the final, Papa Franco will come too. And then for goals, I will score four.”

Supreme Court stimulus

Or how Judge Roberts fixed the housing market. I think one of the more interesting aspects of the surprise decision by the Supreme Court to declare forced consumption constitutional by virtue of the federal taxing power is its potential use as a device for economic intervention. Since savings is the bane of the neo-Keynesians, the newfound ability of the federal government to dictate consumption means that there need never again be a savings glut, a demand gap, or what Paul Krugman decries as insufficient inflation.

For example, since there is presently insufficient demand in the housing market, the Congress can address this by simply passing a law requiring everyone with an annual income of more than $75,000 who does not presently have a mortgage to purchase a house with a price of at least $250,000 or face paying a tax of $15,000. Because the annual cost of the mortgage payments would only come to around $11,500 at current low interest rates, most people would choose to purchase a house rather than pay the tax, especially since there would be an implied “Roberts Put” providing a reasonable expectation of decent profits on the forced investment. Such a law would be perfectly constitutional, as per the court’s recent decision, and it would have an undeniably inflationary effect on home prices, bank assets, and national wealth while reducing those pernicious savings rates and ending debt-deflation in the household sector.

Surely permanent economic prosperity is nigh!

On this day

I understand there are various events of note occurring around the world today. But surely the most momentous is this: the greatest goal in the history of Tip Kick. It occurred today, June 28, 2012, from a goal kick. It inscribed a perfect arc, right into the upper corner of the net, actually knocking aside the outstretched hands of the surprised keeper. GOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL!!!!!!

There will be other goals today, but none, I think, so magnificent.

UPDATE: Avanti Azzurri! 2-1 and it probably should have been 5-1.

Supreme Court: Obamacare is constitutional

This is the first Scotusblog take: “So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court…. The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”

People are still reading the opinion, but it would appear that the Court did its usual trick of admitting that the law is unconstitutional on its face, but finding a way of allowing it to come into force anyhow. And the support of the Bush-appointed Roberts for Obamacare demonstrates the complete absurdity of appealing to the Supreme Court to justify voting for Republican presidents. After nearly 40 years of this, you’d think Charlie Brown would realize that Lucy is never going to hold the football no matter what she says.

UPDATE: Bingo. “The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.”

UPDATE 2: In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding…. to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

Mailvox: of free trade, Austrians, and authors

CA asks about protectionism in Alabama:

If I understand your position correctly, you say the free movement of labor is an inherent flaw in the free trade ideology. If this is true, the recently passed Alabama HB 56 would theoretically correct for the free movement of labor by forcing illegal immigrants out of the workforce. Apparently it did force them out of the workforce and now Alabama farmers cannot find enough labor to meet their needs because legal workers are unable or unwilling to perform the work that the illegal immigrants had been doing. The situation turns the “they took our jobs” argument on its head.

Would you chalk this up to the fact that Americans have become soft and lazy because illegal immigrants have been doing all the hard work for so long? Do you expect that, if the law is kept on the books, legal workers will eventually take the reigns when the situation becomes more dire? Am I entirely missing the point somewhere? Basically, how do you fit this empirical data into your anti-free trade theory?

I have been enjoying this discussion, btw, thanks for the intellectual stimulation.

First, I have to offer a mild correction to the statement that “Alabama farmers cannot find enough labor to meet their needs because legal workers are unable or unwilling to perform the work that the illegal immigrants had been doing”. The fact is that Alabama farmers cannot find enough labor to meet their needs because legal workers are unable or unwilling to perform the work that the illegal immigrants had been doing at the same lower wages the immigrants had been receiving. Would they have any trouble finding sufficient labor if they paid $1 milllion per hour? Of course not. So, it’s not a problem of a shortage of labor, but rather, insufficient wages.

How does this fit into my anti-free trade theory? Perfectly. In the free trade scenario, the low-wage laborers migrate legally to Alabama and stay there, increasing the farmers’ profits at the expense of the Alabama workers and the local Alabama culture which is now permanently transformed into Mexico-Alabama. The Alabama workers must either reduce their standard of living by accepting Mexican wages or leave Alabama in search of a place where they can find higher wages. Even if overall wealth is increased temporarily, it comes at a high cost in societal destruction, as even if Alabama’s population remains the same, its demographics do not.

And since immigrants are disproportionately young men, the qualitative change in the workforce likely means exchanging young, single Hispanic men for Alabama family men. This will tend to increase crime, lower property values, reduce social cohesion, and incur other costs that don’t show up in the simple economic calculations.

AM, on the other hand, thinks that opposition to free trade is impossible for a libertarian:

According to the lead for your columns you are a “Christian libertarian.” Perhaps you really are a Christian. Your column on free trade definitely scratches the libertarian part. You also seem to believe that NAFTA, etc. are free trade agreements. You also fail to explain any harm from real free trade or any benefits from using force and violence to interfere with individuals who want to trade. You are good at name calling of Ricardo and others who advance the principles of comparative advantage. Yet you have not one word about what is wrong with the principles. I eagerly await your analysis and criticism of the principles of comparative advantage. I suspect I will be waiting a long time. Government borrowing is a problem. That it borrows from those the people of the US trade with, rather than from people of the US doesn’t make the borrowing any more destructive.

I can see how some libertarians can reasonably argue that I am No True Libertarian, but their thinking is simplistic and relies upon the fallacious concept that maximizing human liberty requires maximizing the legal range of human behavior. I will eventually be presenting a positive case for opposing free trade in some circumstances as part of my argument for National Libertarianism. In the meatime, as we can see from the example of this email, many free trade advocates are blatantly dishonest. Let’s list just a few of the obvious falsehoods some of them keep repeating:

1. Free trade does not mean free trade in services.
2. Free trade does not involve the free movement of labor.
3. Free trade does not involve free trade agreements.
4. Free trade is binary.

AM also throws in numerous other falsehoods as well, but I expect most of you can see how absurd they are since, just to give one example, I have obviously supplied considerably more than one word about what is wrong with the principles of comparative advantage. But let’s focus on the idea that NAFTA, GATT and other free trade agreements are not free trade agreements.

Now, I don’t deny that these various agreements do not constitute perfectly free trade. After all, we still have immigration laws, work visas, and numerous other means of preventing the free movement of labor and various tariffs are still on the books. But there is no denying that these free trade agreements have led to a greater volume of trade as well as a reduction in tariff rates and the number of tariffs. Consider the facts:

NAFTA provides for the elimination of Mexican tariffs on 5,900 categories of imports from the United States and Canada (mostly machinery and intermediate goods), representing more than 40 percent of Mexico’s overall trade. Other products are reclassified in a simplified tariff list having four rate bands–5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. The United States eliminated tariffs on 3,100 additional categories of Mexican goods, bringing to 80 percent the portion of all Mexican exports to the United States that will be free from tariffs. Some 4,200 categories already had been included in the General System of Preferences (GSP) and were thus already exempt from tariffs. The treaty eliminates some tariffs immediately and phases out the rest over five, ten, or fifteen years, with vulnerable industries in the United States and Mexico receiving the longest protection.

Mexico’s deadlines for lowering trade barriers are generally longer than those for Canada and the United States. The latter countries are required to lift immediately their tariffs on some 80 percent of Mexico’s nonoil exports, while Mexico must grant immediate free entry to 42 percent of United States and Canadian exports. Special rules apply for trade in textiles, vehicles and auto parts, and agricultural products. The treaty also governs trade in services, including overland transport, telecommunications, and financial services, and it includes provisions for the liberalization of government procurement.

NAFTA requires Mexico to abolish protectionist limitations on foreign investment (except in the energy sector), allow free profit repatriation by United States and Canadian firms, and guarantee investors against property seizure without full compensation. The treaty allows foreign banks to take up to 25 percent of Mexico’s banking market and allows foreign brokerages to take 30 percent of the securities business by 2004, after which all restrictions are to be eliminated.

The dishonesty of the “free trade agreements are not free trade” argument is readily apparent in the way in which the free trade arguments oppose adding new tariffs, raising tariff rates, or reducing immigration on the basis of their free trade doctrine while simultaneously attempting to claim that no amount of eliminated tariffs, reduced tariff rates, or increased immigration can be considered free trade. They’re claiming that the protectionist pros and cons can be judged on a graduated basis, but the pros and cons of free trade cannot be. This is not only dishonest, but is obviously absurd, since the benefits of free trade cannot magically arrive all at once with the Traders’ Paradise if the costs of protectionism appear piecemeal.

NAFTA is not an entirely free trade agreement, but it is an agreement to engage in freer trade, it has in fact led to freer trade, and as such, it serves perfectly well as an example of the failure of free trade doctrine. I note that in all the denials of connection between NAFTA, GATT, and other free trade agreements and genuine free trade, very few free trade advocates have come out and called for the cancellation of those agreements. This is not to say that no free traders ever opposed NAFTA; it should come as no surprise that Murray Rothbard did.

And on a mildly amusing tangential note, I’m not the only one who has noted Gary North’s inability to distinguish between related, but distinct concepts.

According to Gary: “[Mises’s] disciple Murray Rothbard promoted 100% reserve banking. But, because he [Rothbard] opposed the existence of the state, his call for 100% reserves was not a call for legislation requiring 100% reserves.”

Murray Rothbard of course opposed the state. But, according to Gary, Murray would therefore have to oppose all legislation or laws. Yet, clearly, Murray (as a libertarian, not an Austrian), favored laws against murder, rape, etc. In his view, they would be implemented not by the government, but by private defense agencies. It is a misconstrual of free market anarchism to say that advocates of this philosophy oppose all laws. Au contraire: We are supporters of proper law, i.e., laws upholding individual rights and private property. Indeed, our criticism of the government is that it violates such proper law.

And finally, a member of the Dread Ilk has published a book on Round One. No doubt Nate will want to check it out.

Euro 2012 Semifinal 1

Spain 1 Portugal 0 (4-2)

Spain was again pretty poor on the night and missed their first penalty, but then made four straight to go through to the finals. I don’t understand why Torres is on the bench when the Spanish can’t score, but then, Spain’s tactics are meant to be confusing.

German court finds Muslim guilty; Jews suffer most

I was pretty sure when I read this that we could count on some hysterical reactions from those who can detect anti-semitism in cloud formations:

German Court Declares Judaism A Crime

Hard to believe, but that’s what the decision handed down by the regional court in Cologne, Germany means: circumcising a child under the age of consent is a crime, notwithstanding the religious beliefs of the parents…. Jews believe that the circumcision of infants is a necessary act; the command to circumcise male children at the age of eight days is the first command that God gives Abraham to mark their covenant; for thousands of years this has been a foundation of Jewish life. To ban infant circumcision is essentially to make the practice of Judaism illegal in Germany; it is now once again a crime to be a Jew in the Reich.

First of all, no one seems to have any problem with ignoring the religious beliefs of the parents when it comes to circumcising girls, so it seems more than a little bit hypocritical for anyone to simultaneously claim that there is a religious right to chop off part of a boy’s body off, but not any part of a girl’s body. Does Mr. Mead support the right of female circumcision for those Muslims who practice that?

Second, there are severe restrictions on religious freedom in Germany. One cannot homeschool there, wear a headscarf, or be excused from classes on evolution for religious purposes, so it seems a bit much to expect to be able to cut pieces off other people’s bodies there on that basis. If you want to practice your religion in freedom, Germany is simply not the place for you. This is neither news nor rocket science.

Third, circumcision is not Judaism, as should be obvious given the fact that many Christians and Muslims are circumcised and are not Jews. So, it is simply false to claim that Germany has declared Judaism to be a crime. And fourth, why do Jews still want to live in Germany anyway? One finds it hard to imagine that the Germans have not made it sufficiently clear that they do not cherish living with Jews among them any more than Israelis enjoy living with Sudanese in their midst.

UPDATE: I have zero sympathy for Jews whining about this court decision. They have no grounds for complaining about finding themselves on the short end of the freedom of religion law this time given this previous German court case: “In 1973, a Jew complained successfully that his freedom of religion was violated by the obligation to speak in a German courtroom decorated by a cross.

Do you want your traditions to be respected? Then keep your nose out of everyone else’s.

The Globalist Propositions of Free Trade

If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another…. But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
On the Question of Free Trade, Karl Marx, 1848

Mises may have never wavered from the view that free trade is a crucial economic policy in the program to restrict the growth of socialism. This does not alter the easily demonstrated fact that Mises was completely wrong on this particular issue, as can be seen by taking the position of Karl Marx into account, or examining the following chart, which shows the very strong statistical correlation, 0.95, between the increasing volume of international trade and the increase in the debt owed by the U.S. federal government.

It doesn’t matter if one prefers to utilize different measures of the expansion of the power of the central state, as they will show much the same result.  What this chart shows is a five-decade refutation of the Misean assertion that an increase in trade intrinsically inhibits the expansion of the scale and scope of state power, and particularly after 1994, it shows that a reduction of protectionism does not reduce the continued growth of the state in the slightest. To the extent that any claim of causation can be made, (and I am not making one here), we must conclude that it is arguments and policies in favor of free trade that “help to expand the power of the state” and “move in the direction of central economic planning.”

This should also not be mistaken for a claim that an increase in international trade, or even an increase in the trade deficit, is responsible for all, or even for most, of the growing amount of public and private debt. That would be impossible, since the $738 million in new debt required to pay for the 2011 balance of payments deficit in goods would barely cover two quarters worth of new federal debt alone, and obviously the federal government is neither purchasing nor financing the purchase of all foreign imports.

Mr. North claims that the central economic issue dividing the right wing movement is the issue of protectionism. This may well be true, I have no opinion on the matter except to say that I believe there is a much stronger right wing case against free trade than can be made for it. After all, the political right generally considers concepts such as national identity, culture, and tradition to be matters of serious and even vital import whereas the political left disdains them, and in some cases even denies their existence. So when Mr. North refers to “invisible lines known as borders”, it should be clear that although he is a man of the right, he is addressing this issue from a distinctly leftward position.

Where Mr. North appears to go fundamentally awry on this issue is his inability to distinguish between the state and the nation. He claims, correctly enough, that the statist equates the state and society and sees the state as the one true agent of the nation. He notes that some statists actually believe that the state is the same as the nation, and this is true. However, although North appears to understand that the state is not the nation, he clearly fails to appreciate that his arguments against the state do not necessarily apply to the nation. Indeed, the use of the term nation-state in a non-ironic manner is to reveal an outdated mindset that fails to recognize the way the laws and goverments of most Western states are openly anti-nationalistic.

North asserts the collectivist begins with the concept of the state as the final authority, while libertarian theory begins with the concept of the individual as the final authority. But as a Christian who claims that his view of economics begins with God as the final authority, North not only shows that he is no libertarian, but should recognize that nations do exist, that they are more than mere invisible lines, and that they are neither states nor individuals. A nation can be a state, but in most cases, nations are spread across two or more states, and many states encompass multiple nations. This adds a complicating factor to North’s case that he simply ignores in his attempt to create a false dichotomy between the libertarian free trader and the protectionist collectivist.

North clearly recognizes he has a problem here, as he acknowledges that conservatives say they don’t equate the state with the nation, but then promptly conflates the two into “the nation-state” before attempting to distract the reader by waving the red herring of mercantilism, which was a coherent historical system that has very little to do with modern protectionism except for also favoring the use of tariffs. He offers nothing but misleading  rhetoric combined with inept logic here, and promptly goes back to complaining about the state again without ever dealing with the legitimate problems raised concerning the material difference between the state and the nation. And in the end, he finally gives up and throws in the towel by attempting to deny the existence of nations.

“There is a true bait-and-switch operation going on here. Defenders of tariffs present themselves as defenders of the nation, when in fact the nation, from the point of view of economics, is not a collective entity. The nation, from an economic standpoint, is simply a convenient name that we give to people inside invisible judicial lines known as national borders.”

But the only bait-and-switch taking place here is by North, who is substituting “nation” for “state” and attempting to hide this by claiming that this substitution is justified “from an economic standpoint”. But the bulk of North’s case and most his complaints about protectionism, such as the oft-repeated “badges and guns” argument, have nothing to do with economics at all. This substitution leads North into a totally false claim about how the “entire concept of protectionism” depends upon a series of propositions that no protectionist needs to hold. North’s simplistic approach simply cannot account for the possibility that anyone might be aware of the potential divergence between the interest of the nation and the interests of the state, and favor the former without promoting the latter. And it is truly ironic that he accuses protectionists of “welfare statism” when his free trade argument amounts to nothing more than international welfare and the distribution of wealth from societies with high living standards to those with lower ones.

Of course, it should not be surprising that in what increasingly appears to be his dotage, North is incapable of grasping complex issues.  He even seems to have completely forgotten that 12 years ago he himself advocated the use of tariffs, with all those terrible badges and guns, in the interests of liberty. He complains that those who start their analysis with the nation and still seek to defend the free market suffer from intellectual schizophrenia and do not know how to think straight, but in doing so, only demonstrates his failure to understand that the nationalist argument includes economic elements but is not limited to them.

I strongly suspect that North’s refusal to recognize the link between free trade and revolutionary globalism identified by Marx is because, as a post-millenialist, he himself is a utopian globalist who favors the destruction of nations. This also explains his callous indifference towards not only the wealth of nations, but even their existence, as like Marx, he anticipates the Worker’s Paradiseliteral Heaven on Earth.

The Globalist Propositions of Free Trade are as follows:

  • The nation does not exist.
  • The state is defined by invisible lines.
  • The individual has no responsibility to anyone beside himself.
  • Everyone has the right to work and live anywhere in the world they want.
  • Free Trade organizations and agreements have nothing to do with free trade, even if they lower tariffs and result in increased international trade.
  • The state does not require funding.
  • All government is unnecessary and illegitimate.