The North American Free Trade Agreement is Anything but Free
Presidential Primary Data
Presidential Campaign Data
Defining the Tricks of the Trade
Did you like "Charlie Wilson's War"?
Patrick Murphy, (a
registered "Decline to State" Independent
People may wonder why it took
me so long to write about this. My reason is that
I ought to read the full agreement before commenting.
Despite my own propensity to read lengthy books
Bill Clinton's "My Life",
in the end, I reconsidered. After all, if the
it into law, then why should I? Therefore, after
NOT reading all
of the thousands of pages that
constitute the NAFTA
agreement, I woke up this morning with
a not so unusual epiphany
that NAFTA is
anything but free if not for any other reason than
that the benefits are not outweighed by the cost
in time it takes to read the
For one thing, none of the countries involved experience free trade on their own or collectively. For another, we don't have anything to trade in the first place and I'm not just talking about our lack of manufacturing in the U.S.
Lastly, we hear a lot of complaining about NAFTA which begs the question that a lot of folks are asking. Do the complaints have merit?
Most names given to things by the government intentionally mislead "we the people." I think the word "Free" in NAFTA is wrong even if it is politically correct. (Statements that are politically correct are seldom scientifically correct). Even the most intelligent among us, that don't specialize in understanding any given issue, are taken in by the governments' "grift."
Why NAFTA isn't Free
Communism–like that offered here in the United States, offers the "closest to free" trade concept in that those that don't pay taxes can get benefits. Perhaps, from the beneficiary's standpoint, those benefits are free. However, in the strictest sense, others are paying for those benefits. In NAFTA's case, we don't even come close to free. Were trade truly free in the countries involved, we would be able to trade anything for anything else. Instead, we are very limited in what and how we can trade. We can't trade gold in certain quantities and we can't use any currency we want. It would be too confusing for the government's taxing authorities that want us to accept our debased currency. The government controls and regulates what we can and can't trade and what we use for currency under the guise of simplicity. Despite the attempt, it is not simple. Government money is marketed to us and we get far less than we bargain for when we use it. Therefore, in the most basic and unpopular sense, we have an un-free trade agreement and as long as there are any government controls, like taxes and the Federal Reserve, there will be no free trade. Even moving across borders freely is an impossibility, especially if the Republicans and Democrats have any say in the issue. All they do is make moving across borders more expensive and make those that traffic people richer. In the process there is very expensive waste and bureaucracy. Nothing is ever free, nor is there much freedom involved, especially when it comes to NAFTA. The word is simply inserted by the rich and powerful to calm the sheep, lemmings and ostriches of the world. Perhaps this is because were it more correctly named NATA, it would be too close to the Spanish term "nada," meaning "nothing." Obviously NAFTA is anything but nothing, if not free.
Why We don't Really Have Anything to Trade
In addition, think for a moment about ownership. Thanks to government and taxes, you don't really own anything. You don't own your home, your land or yourself in fact. Who does? The government does, or at least it does until it goes away and leaves it all to some other government or entity. It does so by implied force, condemnation and a multitude of other means. You may think you're free, but that is an illusion. Instead, you are a piece of property–a slave! You don't even own yourself. In reality, we all live in a government controlled world where we trade things we don't own for things other people don't own. Ownership is an illusion. I suppose that the old saying that you can't take it with you has greater weight than demonstrated on the surface. Perhaps it is all good sense. After all, in most cases, governments outlive individuals and, for the most part, the things we thought that we possessed also may outlive us (don't forget the death tax). Sure, the Egyptians buried folks with their supposed possessions, but sooner or later, someone would dig them up and try to "possess" those things for awhile. Not even Kings and Queens could avail themselves of ownership in a "transfer" world. In fact, Danny DeVito would be proud of the fact that we all use "other people's money."*
What NAFTA Really Does
If there was ever a reason not to vote Democratic, NAFTA is it. For all the liberal complaints about NAFTA, many democrats forget that William Jefferson Clinton signed it into law. Was it because, on the issue, he was an idiot, or because he was in hot water and had to kiss some buttocks? I'll let you be the judge of that one. Needless to say, he and Congress did the average American no favor.
This past week, I had the good fortune to have more of the world's horrors revealed to me through entertainment. Two movies, Trade and Bordertown, focused on problems generated in the aftermath of NAFTA. The second concerned the Maquiladoras, Mexican factories that take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export and how they don't protect their workers and enable the Mexican government to take the peasants land by increasing taxes on the landowners. (The same thing happens here when Americans lose their land for not paying property taxes.) In Mexico, this is bluntly accelerated and leaves landowners with an option to move near the Maquiladoras where they will have to work for few benefits and little money. It is reminiscent of the corporate towns once dominating certain areas in the United States.
NAFTA is really one key step onto the path towards "A New World Order" and one world government. Of course, where it offers a forum for nations to settle disputes short of war, I could say that order would be a good thing. Obviously that didn't work with the United Nations. However, folks need to understand that Bush's "New World Order" and its inevitable overseeing government, is designed to give the rich and powerful more wealth and power. Listen carefully now. I am saying that the shackles that will arise from such a beast are meant for you and me. Were "they" to lock us down sufficiently, we would have all kinds of redistribution of the wealth programs just like those that American slaves had in the 17th through19th centuries. Somebody gave them food and water. However, unlike the situation of the slaves, we will have freedom of speech. We can say anything we want, because it won't matter. We will be so thoroughly entertained with futuristic coliseums that we won't even try to be anything more than a slave. Heck, when all taxes and debt is truly considered, tax freedom day is already past July first. You already are a slave for half the year. At what point will you stop voting for the folks you're told to vote for? At what point will you do anything more than complain? When will you choose to STAND TALL and walk the way Americans are supposed to walk?
What if we were more free?
What if we were free? What if Mexicans were allowed unconditional free access to the United States? First, it would immediately end the housing crisis. Second, the United States could pay off its national debt. Third, we would become the wealthiest nation on earth, albeit still ruled by a King George Bush substitute. Unfortunately, freedom won't immediately make people any smarter or better informed. Such a move would not immediately solve all the problems of North America, let alone all the problems of the world any more than the European Union has.
*a DeVito quote from the movie "Other People's Money."
Michael Patrick Murphy is the author of two books. The Greens ISBN 13: 9780595133055 and The Government, ISBN 0-595-30863-5. Both are available online or from your favorite bookstores by special order. Mike also ran for the California State Assembly in 2006.
Mike can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org