*pause* *longer pause* Didn't think so.

So, you are perfectly willing to empower a bunch of unelected FOREIGN bureaucrats to make decisions affecting U.S. trade policy (not to mention rewarding the murderous Chinese Communist regime with special trade privileges), but you don't trust your own City Council to determine the level of library fines. Fascinating!

-PeterH (eagerly waiting the usual insults about how I'm an elitist snob, though I drive a Honda Civic)

-- PeterH (hartikka@primenet.com), November 24, 1999

Answers

Usual insults? Why, sir, you insult me. I'm a rabid 695 supporter...hang on while I whipe the foam off my mouth... there... anyway, I support 695 and reductions in government AND free trade, but I do not support the general premise of the WTO. Here's why, not necessariliy in order of importance, but as they come to mind:

1. I don't want to reward the murderous Chinese Communist regime with special trade privileges. I am in favour of abolishing 'most favoured nation' trade status completely.

2. While I may disagree with many of our current regulatory philosophies in this country, they're still OUR philosophies, and I'll defend to the death our right to choose our philosophical path. For instance, I may not agree with certain environmental regulations, but by god, they're ours, and no nation whatsoever is gonna tell us what to do within our borders. Remember, the american socialist parties, while against the 'free trade' part, are not against 'globalization'. That's why they're not making a big noise against the wto. I don't like globalization. It keeps me awake at night. We have no more right to tell a group of people in Tanzania how to run their affairs than they do us. 'nuff said. WTO is less about capitalism, and more about sovreignty.

3. Let's face it, the world in general is still a mishmash of socialistic and fascist thinking, with a smattering of free marketeering thrown in. This would be like us joining the E.U. The wobbly-kneed, E.U., thank you very much. I have no desire to join hands with a bunch of socialists who are playing a smoke and mirror game with 'free trade'. See 'globalization'.

4. Chicks don't dig the W.T.O. That's a joke, son.

5. The socialists aren't going to get off that easy. Von Mises predicted that "economic calculation under socialism would lead to economic collapse." Now that the Soviet Union has had its predicted economic collapse, eastern europe and the remaining semi-socialist/mixed economy nations are looking for a handout. We warned them, they wouldn't listen. Now they think they can 'talk' about free trade and we're gonna come running, money in hand, IMF behind us, and we're all gonna play nicey nicey. They chose their economic path, let them change their policies, not us change ours. Remember, Gorbochev didn't want real free-market reforms, he wanted to put, and I quote, a "human face on socialism". They never learn. Next...

6. There is no 6, I think I've said it all. I just thought a 6 would look good next to the 5... just to round it out a bit.

Pablo! King of all he surveys...within his cubicle...if the lights were on.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 24, 1999.

Peter--I might have missed something, but I've never seen anyone on this forum called an elitist snob. Hmmm, I'm thinking you'd be a bit sensitive to that charge. . .why???

I haven't decided what I think about the WTO yet. In some ways, I have trouble with the sovereignty issues it represents. On the other hand, it keeps environmentalists and labor organizations focused on something besides controlling my behavior (or invading my pocketbook as the case may be).

Personally, I don't know if we should've allowed Chinese membership in the WTO. I would say we shouldn't have, but then we'd have *no* mechanism to influence their development. AFAICT, a policy of politically and economically isolating China would be a disaster. It doesn't seem reasonable to think the "South Africa model" would work with China.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 24, 1999.

"Peter--I might have missed something, but I've never seen anyone on this forum called an elitist snob. Hmmm, I'm thinking you'd be a bit sensitive to that charge. . .why???"

Oops, sorry, that was just one of the li'l gems mentioned in the crank call I got as a result of my anti-695 letter in the paper. (The caller continued by growling in a low, phone-sex voice, "We'll get rid of limousine liberals like you, and then get rid of that Socialist governor... yeah, that's it, we're gonna unLocke Washington... yyyeahhhhh...)

-PeterH, venting

-- PeterH (hartikka@primenet.com), November 24, 1999.

So, Peter, you put your home phone # in a letter to the newspaper?

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 24, 1999.

The WTO sucks. We should not join WTO. We should not have joined the UN, but that is water of the hill. We should not be yielding our sovereignty to anyone, especially not the WTO. I'm a known I-695 supporter and I oppose the WTO. Who was the #@$%&*!@}#% that invited these WTOs to Seattle? Why didn't they go to LA or somewhere else that is already a mess. This is going to cost us a lot of money. Socialist oppose the WTO for different reasons than I do. But I am happy to see them "di xoung doung". Why would you think that someone rational enough to support I-695 would automatically support the WTO? Holy bovine, Peter! Do you realize that a state that is ready to declare bankrupcy over I-695 has spent $250,000 for an "Emerald Level" corporate sponsorship of the WTO so they can get a handful of tickets for some bureaucrats to schmooze with the WTO delgates? Is there anyone alive who thinks the state has nowhere to cut spending to replace the lost of the MVET ripoff?

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), November 24, 1999.

Add me to the anti WTO list. Big time.

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), November 25, 1999.