: Molly Ivins, one of the brightest stars of the cabal of leftwing journalists secretly plotting to steal our childrens' precious bodily fluids (when they're not hanging disabled veterans from nooses made from American flags!) wrote a terrific column on the WTO debacle. Enjoy:
Ack! She is trying to destroy our Purity Of Essence! First it was flourine...what next!?! (hehhe, I love that movie).
Seriously though, I went to the sight and read the article. To be honest, her writing is not all that impressive. I was a little confused by some stuff, such as this:
I actually heard it argued that free trade inevitably leads to democracy and human rights. You would think, would you not, that people would have enough sense to check the evidence before making a statement like that. Among the WTO's members in good standing are Colombia, Cuba, Rwanda, Myanmar, Angola, Pakistan and many others high on the hit lists of human rights organizations around the world. It's enough to make you wonder about the double standard of those who condemn the admission of China to the WTO as some heinous new offense against concern for human rights.
Okay, she starts out by commenting that she heard some people argue that free trade leads to democracy and human rights, it is obvious that she thinks rather poorly of the these people. She starts to qulify her statement by pointing out that nations that have a poor human rights record and are not democratic are members. She then completely shifts gear and starts to attack people who oppose Chinas admittance into the WTO because of an oppressive government and poor human rights history.
Salvaging her previous argument that she kinda sort of made about how free trade cannot lead to democracy and human rights because there are nations that are appart of the WTO that are undemocractic and oppressive. First of all, the WTO has not achieved free trade yet, there are still huge restrictions and tariffs and trade barriers put up by other countries. The WTO seeks to create free trade among nations. (Personally, however, I think the WTO is an awful idea and will do more harm than good.)
Look, trade is good. Markets are good. But markets have to be restrained by society and by political organizations. Unrestrained markets get rid of Jesus and Jefferson at the same time. There is no necessary corollary between free trade and secrecy. Free trade doesn't mean free to trash the environment or to trample on people.
This is just stupid. How do free markets get rid of Jesus and Jefferson? I am sure Jefferson would have no qualms with a free market, after all, America in his day was practicaly laissez-faire. (P.S.-- Sociamism gets rid of John Cage and Joan of Arc.)
Gosh, I get railed on for reading Ayn Rand-- at least she can keep her rhetoric linear. All in all though, the article is fairly blasť.