Come, come Mark. You’ve surely read the red-meat conspiracy theorists on this stuff. Ron Paul actually said that he didn’t agree with them — a “conspiracy of ideas” is not what they mean when they talk about a “conspiracy,” and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Yet Paul knows he needs their support.
I’m disappointed in Ron Paul — I’ve never seen him give an “it depends on the definition if ‘is'” answer before.
On the substance — some “conspiracy” when the president of Mexico talks about it on CNN. And there’s been a lot of coverage of the idea of a north/south central interstate in Texas newspapers.
If you want to oppose a north/south interstate in the central U.S., then do so on the merits.
But also keep in mind that “free trade” depends on the ability of goods and services to get from one place to another. Reducing transaction costs is ordinarily a good thing. There is no more necessarily link between a centralized, sovereign, North American government and this interstate highway than there is between the idea that I-95 connects Cuba and Canada.
Do you really see the world in the black and white terms that it seems to me you paint on your blog?
RIght. Free-trade EU style — with the buildup of a huge, intrusive, and unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels is not what we want. If a free-trade agreement entails that, then oppose it.
The issue, though, is “conspiracy.” That is, a secret work of a group with interests manifestly adverse to the public good.
A policy can be unwise, foolish, or even asinine, but that doesn’t mean that it’s implemented by a conspiracy.
I’m tired of conservatives (including libertarians) trying to make excuses for the fact that they can’t persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to their policy views on the merits of those views. So instead, they cry “Conspiracy!”
(And, yes, I-95 has some differences. Do not neglect the import of the word, “necessarily,” in my second-to-last sentence.)
Come, come Mark. You’ve surely read the red-meat conspiracy theorists on this stuff. Ron Paul actually said that he didn’t agree with them — a “conspiracy of ideas” is not what they mean when they talk about a “conspiracy,” and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Yet Paul knows he needs their support.
I’m disappointed in Ron Paul — I’ve never seen him give an “it depends on the definition if ‘is'” answer before.
On the substance — some “conspiracy” when the president of Mexico talks about it on CNN. And there’s been a lot of coverage of the idea of a north/south central interstate in Texas newspapers.
If you want to oppose a north/south interstate in the central U.S., then do so on the merits.
But also keep in mind that “free trade” depends on the ability of goods and services to get from one place to another. Reducing transaction costs is ordinarily a good thing. There is no more necessarily link between a centralized, sovereign, North American government and this interstate highway than there is between the idea that I-95 connects Cuba and Canada.
Do you really see the world in the black and white terms that it seems to me you paint on your blog?
Actually, I see it as very grey, which is why I’m actually starting to think twice about all the free trade arrangements I used to favor.
In my utopia, there are simply no national borders or border checks. But I’m getting scared off by the way I think things are being implemented.
BTW, since I-95 is not a chain of “inland ports” it is not comparable.
RIght. Free-trade EU style — with the buildup of a huge, intrusive, and unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels is not what we want. If a free-trade agreement entails that, then oppose it.
The issue, though, is “conspiracy.” That is, a secret work of a group with interests manifestly adverse to the public good.
A policy can be unwise, foolish, or even asinine, but that doesn’t mean that it’s implemented by a conspiracy.
I’m tired of conservatives (including libertarians) trying to make excuses for the fact that they can’t persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to their policy views on the merits of those views. So instead, they cry “Conspiracy!”
(And, yes, I-95 has some differences. Do not neglect the import of the word, “necessarily,” in my second-to-last sentence.)
Well, bunk.