This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
No More "Free Trade" Treaties: It's Time for Genuine Free Trade
Submitted by Ferghane Azihari via The Mises Institute,
It is erroneous to believe that free traders have been historically in favor of free trade agreements between governments. Paradoxically, the opposite is true. Curiously, many laissez-faire advocates fall into the government-made trap by supporting “free-trade” treaties. However, as Vilfredo Pareto stated in the article “Traités de commerce of the Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Economie Politique” (1901):
If we accept free trade, treatises of commerce have no reason to exist as a goal. There is no need to have them since what they are meant to fix does not exist anymore, each nation letting come and go freely any commodity at its borders. This was the doctrine of J.B. Say and of all the French economic school until Michel Chevalier. It is the exact model Léon Say recently adopted. It was also the doctrine of the English economic school until Cobden. Cobden, by taking the responsibility of the 1860 treaty between France and England, moved closer to the revival of the odious policy of the treaties of reciprocity, and came close to forgetting the doctrine of political economy for which he had been, in the first part of his life, the intransigent advocate.
In 1859, the French liberal economist Michel Chevalier went to see Richard Cobden to propose a free trade treaty between France and England. For sure, this treaty, enacted in 1860, was a temporary success for free traders. What is less known however, is that at first, Cobden, in accordance with the free trade doctrine, refused to negotiate or sign any “free trade” treaty. His argument was that free trade should be unilateral, that it consists not in treaties but in complete freedom in international trade, regardless of where products come from.
Chevalier eventually succeeded in obtaining Cobden’s support. But Cobden was puzzled by the complete secrecy surrounding the negotiations and, in a letter to Lord Palmerston, he attributed this secrecy to the “lack of courage” of the French government. Similarly, today, the lack of transparency concerning free-trade negotiations is problematic and it is often hard to know what the content of a treaty will be.
Today, while some of these treaties are currently being negotiated, there are already examples of similar agreements enforced. One could refer to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) or more regional agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the European Economic Area (EEA).
But why would protectionist governments who spend their time hampering markets by giving monopolies and other kinds of privileges at national level, open markets at the international level? The very fact that governments are negotiating in the name of free trade should be suspicious for any libertarian or true advocate of free trade.
Intergovernmental Agreements Enhance Government Power
Murray Rothbard opposed NAFTA and showed that what the Orwellians were calling a “free trade” agreement was in reality a means to cartelize and increase government control over the economy. Several clues lead us to the conclusion that protectionist policies often hide behind free trade agreements, for as Rothbard said, “genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty.”
The first clue is the intergovernmental and top down approach. Intergovernmentalism is nothing more than a process governments use to mutualize their respective sovereignties in order to complete tasks they are not able to accomplish alone. Nation-states are entities which rarely give up power. When they finalize agreements, it is to strengthen their power, not to weaken it. On the contrary, free trade requires a decline of governments’ regulatory power.
Also, free trade does not require interstate cooperation. On the contrary, free trade can be and has to be done unilaterally. As freedom of speech does not need international cooperation, freedom to trade with foreigners does not need governments and treaties. Similarly, our government should not rob their population with corporatist and protectionist policies just because others do. Anyone who believes in free trade does not fear unilateralism. The simple fact that bureaucrats and politicians do not conceive of the international economy outside of a legal frame settled by intergovernmental agreements is sufficient to show the mistrust they express toward individual freedom. This reinforces the conviction that these agreements are driven by mercantilist preoccupations rather than genuine free trade goals.
Extending Regulatory Control Beyond Your Own Borders
The second clue concerns the intense conflicts between governments on these agreements characterized by a high degree of technicality. History shows that multilateralism leads toward deadlock. The failure of the Doha Round is the cause of the proliferation of bilateral and regional initiatives. The contentious relations between governments come from the will of some states to dictate their norms to other countries’ producers through an international harmonization process. But this is the exact opposite of free trade. As economic theory shows us, exchange and the division of labor is not based on equality and harmonization but rather on differences and inequality. Furthermore, the technicality and secrecy surrounding free-trade agreements favor mercantilism and protectionism to the extent that technical regulations are used to favor producers who are politically well connected.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a good illustration of this balance of power. It was at first an agreement between four countries (Brunei, New-Zealand, Singapore, and Chile.) which tried to resist some neighbors’ commercial influence, especially China. Then the United States came and convinced more countries (Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and Japan) to join the negotiations. Let’s also notice that most of the countries invited are already bound by regional or bilateral agreements with the United States. China remains excluded from the process. This governmental drive toward regulatory hegemony is obviously the complete opposite of free trade. Indeed, free trade supposes letting consumers peacefully choose what products they want to promote rather than determining what is available through bureaucratic coercion.
Consolidation of Monopolies
The third clue concerns the vigor with which governments have tried over several decades to impose at the international level a more constraining legal framework for so-called “intellectual property.” The first initiatives appear in 1883 and 1886 with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Amended several times during the twentieth century, the initiatives embrace, respectively, 176 and 168 states. These conventions are placed under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an international bureaucracy which joined the United Nations system in 1974. A turning point came in 1994 with the signature of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) administrated by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is now incorporated as an essential part of the administration of international commerce and benefits from the WTO’s sanction mechanisms.
In 2012 we endured a fresh attempt by our governments to reduce our freedom to create and share intellectual works with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). And, if we look at the negotiations mandates of these trade agreements, we can see they all include a chapter on the reinforcement of “intellectual property” rights. Intellectual property has become a key concept of the international economy. But this must not hide its illegitimacy.
As Vilfredo Pareto remarked, “From the point of view of the protectionist, treaties of commerce are … what is most important for a country’s economic future.” Each time a new “free trade” treaty is enacted, what is seen is the attenuation of tariff barriers, but what is not seen is the sneaky proliferation and harmonization of non-tariff barriers impeding free enterprise and creating monopolies at an international scale at the expense of the consumer. It’s time for genuine free trade.
»
- 8266 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Genuine Free Trade require's Real Money.
"real"? says who (dependent on)?
TRUMP in 2016.
Based on something that can't be magially produced from thin air would be a start.
There are a couple of things that have fulfilled the requirements for this job for most of human history.
"Free Trade" is how capitalists say "just let me put the tip in, OK?" Next thing you know, you're being fucked sideways, and you have nobody to blame but yourself.
+1. True. All the while Adam Smith's stolen phrase "invisible hand" is up your ass.
For those not up on read Leibniz and the physical economy. Measuring economy by real physical output, not in fiat or legal tender. Takes away the cloak of BS of banks and governments
here is a good book about how A. Smith has been misiterpreted by kleptocrats:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Mania-When-More-Enough/dp/039332849X/ref=...
FREE TRADE?
Free from what?
Slave labor? Pollution controls? Government subsidies?
as an American citizen, there is no chance you would ever be allowed to read all the fine print in that trade agreement, let alone know who put it there and why.
well the politicians don't read them either
Reading it would only make you more upset. I read Dodd Frank, which is such a royal fuck of the people, passed off as reform legislation
It's a sad scenario when a total economy melt down is the best possible outcome.
You are not alone. We in Australia have to accept it like the proverbial cat in the bag. We hear that we must change labour laws, but don't know how. My guess is, it'll be further wage stagnation, reduction of the middle class and then they will wonder why the people on 'flexible' jobs and incomes don't spend any money. I think, if they push it through, it will have to be scuttled for generations through the courts.
Fascinating: Nobody talks of an exit clause if we are unhappy with the outcome. Hello???? We are signing the divorce away?
The TPP Free Trade Agreement regulates sugar by government quota, hello????
Gas, grass or ass. Nobody rides for free...
Is that how your mother described the first time she met your father.
Mom was driving...
Until the oil runs out
Never going to happen. People hate private business having been hoodwinked by politicians and believe that their government represents their best interests. It's common that people never learn until the pain comes. The world is an illusion of Capitalism and Democracy when in reality we live in corrupt Socialist Oligarchies and Socialist Oligopoly economies with an illusion of freedom.
Politicians don't have to hoodwink anyone in US. Commerce clause, bitchez. Another strike against the beloved Constitution.
Sorry to say but true free trade will no longer be initiated by the United States. That ship has sailed. Hopefully Russia will take the baton and move toward a more classical liberal philosophy and prompt the US to do the same. China, well, I'm pretty sure China is fucked until it's changed governments a couple times more.
One of the biggest problems with the USA and "Free" Trade is we are the ones with something to lose, we need balance with our trade policies, the peoples wages go down to meet lower wage countries, the peoples jobs leave, money leaves because most of the countries we trade with have less than us or nothing? No one replaces the lost American job/consumer? Its cannibalism or in the very least unsustainable. We do need to manage the "transition" of free trade and not let it be a "free for all" Ripping the rug out from under the American people was not cool. It was really stupid, in my opinion. I call it the real H.S.S.L Salaries going directly into corporations pockets, while jobs rushed out of the country, for junk that was cheap. Not very bright. It was and still is Ross Perot's Giant sucking sound. We have plenty of really shitty jobs though? Remember when they said they only send the jobs no one wants? Its like if someone said here Ill give you $500 if I can ship your job out of the country, and the people said yes? What about maintaining our standard of living during these transitions it would be better for everyone? The reason this country is turning into a shithole is our trade policies. Its like drilling a huge hole in the bottom of a bucket and wondering why it wont stay full of water?
Free trade would mean that government had no say in the matter.
I have something you want - you have something I want - currency (as distinct from money) just enables exchange.
How does someone claim the right to stand in the middle and skim off from both sides, producing absolutely nothing useful?
It works like this.... they have lots of paid, armed and uniformed thugs to impose their will.
The concept of 'free trade' scares the shit out of anyone who wishes to govern.
I like that idea, the problem is all our economies are at different levels of wealth, so when your the country with everything to lose and you take down all the barriers at once, its like a dam breaking. If the water pressure was equal on the other side, meaning the wealth of other countries closer to equal it would work, but its not that way at all and this is the current problem It would create huge shifts in labor markets and that usually means we lose a shit load of jobs to gain some cheap shit. Not good. I believe you have to mature a bit to get to the level your talking about for it to really work and transition to. I think it could work if you gradually made the shift. Not all at once and make sure recovery is happening.
People only need t work 40 hours a week because 50% of their efforts are beaing stolen from them.
Gradual change is a bit slippery - how 'gradual' is OK?
What do you mean by 'recovery'?
People only need t work 40 hours a week because 50% of their efforts are beaing stolen from them.
So does that mean no gov what so ever?
"Gradual change is a bit slippery - how 'gradual' is OK?"
Well when foreclosures sky-rocket, that would be a sign. Like the last time. When neighbour hoods start looking like Detroit and Chicago, that’s a sign. You cant let all the jobs go all at once like we just did, so who knows, just not too fast. Is that your goal to dump them all at once or is your intent "good"?
Well like what we are going through now we really haven’t recovered the jobs from the last "Free" Trade agreements, we certainly could create decent jobs if we wanted, that’s why we don’t have a strong consumer. If your saying lets pull all regulation at once and see what happens, it would be a disaster and create an even larger sucking sound. It depends on your intent?
I really wouldn’t trust anyone on either side at the moment to do the "right" thing. There too many untrustworthy people involved.
The other problem with "Free" Trade that may end up costing us a fortune, is the idea that we give our jobs to countries like China which are not necessarily our friend? We don’t want to give them power and then end up having to defend ourselves against a superpower we created, its the ultimate in stupidity. Not every country in the world has good intentions, and we want to be very careful we don’t empower the wrong people, which is not as easy as it sounds.
The idea of "Free" Trade is definitly misleading there really is no such thing, there always is a cost, Historically its one of the number one reasons for civil war. So that alone tells you to becareful with how you modify it. The only reason I believe we are not currently in a civil war is because of EBT cards and social benefits, at any other time in history we would already be in civil war, so to just rip all the controls off after having them form our society would probably not be good with the current minds we have incharge. When you build your castle of sand be very careful how much you continue to change it because it could all wash away very quickly.
"Free trade would mean that government had no say in the matter."
Yeah, who needs gov'ts anyway? Labour standards pffffft. If LM wanna buy some trinket manufactured by some starving kid who ate his dead mom for lunch because that's all he could afford, why that's 'logical' man's business.
I have something you want - you have something I want - currency (as distinct from money) just enables exchange.
"I mean I don't need to know how you got that thing I want, I just know I want it, and that you will take what i have in exchange, What, it doesn't matter to you how I got my assets either? BONUS!"
or, if they were stronger they might simply take what they wanted from you.
So you call your private police pals, but they are only armed with pitiful Derringers to his squad of AR's, what now?
I guess you would just have to TAKE IT, loser. Now that's how you build a meritocratic society. Fucking Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes FTMFW! WhOOOOOT! (/sarc)
In other words: capitalism cannot function without some sort of government to certify and back its contracts.
<which really, utterly shreds the whole 'anarcho capitalist' skittle shitting unicorn>
How does someone claim the right to stand in the middle and skim off from both sides, producing absolutely nothing useful?
Gov't's acting on mandates from the masses, funded by the same, provide puhlenty of crucial services, not to mention plain old everyday beneficial ones. Including 'standing in the middle' to monitor inherently amoral transactions to ensure they meet their mandate's standards; that alone is a valuable service worth a nickel or two.
Ostensibly an elected gov't is a non profit organisation, so any and all benefits all go to the pubilc, who put the actual labour into it. If an official is corrupt, and skims, then he is culpable as an individual, not the system he is employed by. You might as well be claiming that because someone can imbezzle funds from a private company, that proves capitalism is wholly corrupt.
Elected gov't's aren't someone's anyway, they're everyone's, so if there is any skimming going on by Gov't it's everyone skimming on everyone else's behalf, with everyone enjoying the benefits of what's been 'skimmed'.
It works like this.... they have lots of paid, armed and uniformed thugs to impose their will.
What? Now it's "they"? What happened to "someone"?
But yeah, get rid of publicly funded, civilly monitored police and just imagine the ease of recourse to justice and Fuhreedom you'll receive from private, inscrutable, wholly unaccountable police forces. <just so long as you have the biggest force, which you will, because guns> Laws, when they aren't supported by consensus, are generally accepted codes of behaviour; Eg. so sorry if not committing fraud goes against your personal idiom and the big bad gov't officials, at the behest of everyone else, is going to lock you up for it. Be thankful more places have abolished the death penalty, or raised the bar on it, anyway... some places.
'Might makes right' and 'money talks' are no basis for a meritocratic society. And an elected gov't incarcerating someone for breaking a law defined by basic moral behavoir isn't 'might makes right', it's 'might rights wrong'; after all, even anarchists can recognize basic moral behaviour.
The concept of 'free trade' scares the shit out of anyone who wishes to govern
Not really, the honest ones just know full well it's a meaningless catch phrase used to appeal to the unscrupulous or lure the gullible away from the reality that an inherently amoral system such as (but not limited to) capitalism wants to be subject to public scrutiny; the group it directly affects.
Think 'insurance'.
no more "you can't read it till you pass it"...like tpp or obolacare
There will be no "free trade" until the government gets out of the way.
said a spokesperson from the International order of Water Buffalo.
MOOOO!
Go on, you like the idea of unelected, unaccountable, inscrutable privately operated tribunals deciding your fate dontcha?
Sure, I suppose it'll save you the hassle of having to worry about getting off your ass and involving yourself in any sort of <shudder> political process.
Most people prefer protection over freedom and while most governments reject protectionism,they claim to be doing nothing BUT protecting us, yet seemingly doing none of it. In a world of unequal laws, resources and values, to propose "free trade" seems a little too simple for me. While we know that most trade deals are not for the benefit of the people but simply tools for political leverage and special interests, we should recognize a need for a protectionist "mentality" no different from any other protective or defensive action we would take for our own self preservation. I support a protectionist mentality but less so actual trade policy as no matter the positive intent of government, it is incapable of such and typically results in the opposite of its declared intent. Instead I believe in knowledge and choice derived from transparency and honesty. We should be armed with the knowledge of what IS truly in our own best interest. It is folly and pure deception to promote the idea that we are doing ourselves or our country justice by freely trading with nations such as china who do not play by the same rules, who's wage base we cannot compete with unless we are willing to lower our living standards to match and a nation that we still lack real diplomatic relations with that would indicate that we are true allies. If we are to purchase cheap foreign made goods rather than those made by our neighbor, we must accept that WE are firing him and sending his job off shore. Instead we are indoctrinated to believe that to buy these low wage products is the progressive thing to do. That we are helping raise the standards of others while also benefitting from cheaper goods. And when our neighbor or ourselves find our job has left us behind, we should not blame ourselves, but greedy profit seeking companies. Companies like those in Venezuela, who are forced by government to sell at competitive prices regardless of their costs. Companies who find it more profitable to quit. Our perverted government would have us be far more pleased if our businesses simply went out of business than move. Far happier that we buy all LG TVs rather than Chinese made GEs. Nope, we are all twisted up because we are led to believe that it is our right and duty to buy cheap foreign goods AND have good paying and plentiful jobs. Leave it to government to create demand for the unobtainable and then use it to lever even more power for themselves from its predictable destruction. Our economy is nothing more than an expression of our spending habits, something that ultimately only we can control. Sure we can be and are manipulated, as we always have been. It is up to us to educate ourselves. When we rely on others to educate us, we learn what THEY want us to know, so it should come as no shock where we find ourselves. We should practice protectionism rather than support our governments invocation of it. We should know what is in our interests beyond the immediate and act appropriate to it. We cannot survive any other way, and to place our survival into the hands of ANYONE ELSE is to beg for suffering and eventual demise. We should act in disregard of trade policies to most effectively advance not only ourselves but our family, friends, neighbors and countrymen.... In that order. This is what society is and does. We can and should ACT like a collective WITHOUT government constituting one to eliminate our freedoms. We CAN act in the best interest of us all, freely.
"We CAN act in the best interest of us all, freely."
Yes we can! If you like your free actions in the best interest of us all, you can keep your free actions in the best interests of us all.
Hey, Oldwood, your dream is touching, but have you ever heard the old adage,
"One bad apple can spoil it for the rest of us"? There is truth in it.
Now take that truth and apply it to your 'everyone will always be compelled to the good; because all people are essentially good' meme, as darling as it is, and watch it instantly fall completely apart upon the slightest breath of contrary behaviour's wind, like a house of cards.
If I like my civil oversight I can keep my civil oversight. Contrary to all assertions to the contrary, the business world is NOT renowned for offering 'perfect knowledge' unless they are compelled to by regulation. And that's supported by the evidence, regardless of ideology.
Genuine free trade is a nice thought. But keep in mind that big money runs these things. No wonder Obama is confident TPP will pass>>
http://www.mintpressnews.com/obama-confident-in-getting-tpp-deal-complet...
Free trade is just more Orwellian speak. Anything with the word "Free" in it, must be a good thing , right? What it means, is less jobs for you, and more $ for the elites. I remember one of their best lies they used to tell over twenty years ago when they were selling NAFTA. They said the lower production costs would translate into lower prices for all the goods that would be produced in Mexico, that were once made here. Guess what? THE SAVINGS NEVER GOT PASSED TO CONSUMERS, JUST LIKE I SAID THEY WOULDN'T. Where did the money go? Some of it was paid out in dividends to shareholders, while the rest was skimmed off the top by management, to pay fat-cat salaries to the crooks who sold American workers down the river.
as predicted by James Godsmith here in this prophetic nterview:
(C. Rose looks dumber than usual)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
If ever there was a misnomer, this is it. It represents the opposite of free trade. I don't think there has been any free trade since the 80's, and that's when everybody started paying through the nose for a free trade.
Constricted thinking...
you can't have "free trade" regardless of agreements when an overarching environment of corruption and control stands with or without them,
and your vote for "free trade" anyway neglects mistakes already made, and the economic and social disruption en route to your proposed new equilibrium.
You gotta stop giving up what's left of the farm in the guise of economic theory and altruism.
Or maybe you're really just a budding globalist hiding behind "Mises"...
indeud
We cannot freely trade with that which is not made available to us, BUT, we can choose from what is, and THAT has been our failure, even if we were manipulated and lied to. It is impossible that we can be so stupid to think that we can buy ever more imports and NOT impact our own jobs and economy. Simply impossible, yet seemingly true, as we see countless posters here complaining of evil governments and corporations stealing our jobs. Really...like we really think we can buy nothing but Toyotas and ford will just keep hiring....damn Ford anyway, thieving bastids! Like we can keep unions pushing wages and benefits higher while convincing ourselves that our cheap corporate masters are deliberately bankrupting themselves as an excuse to move off shore. Sure....we gripe continuously about the brain dead sheep who seem to think our government can just keep handing out money as if from heaven while WE can buy all the cheap foreign crap we please and never, ever will it touch us. Not our job, not our business. Never. We bitch and moan of over protective government taking our freedoms and then after WE have pissed away our jobs and WE have gone neck deep in debt, WE demand they do something to protect us. No, freedom is dependent upon one thing, and that is intelligence. Nothing or no one can be free AND stupid.
Trade among nations necessarily has a political element to which free traders seem to be blind. When two nations trade freely, they become dependent on one another. Do you really want to be dependent on a country that is pursuing economic policies doomed to create a catastrophe (like the USA) or one that builds empty citiies in the desert to prevent a collapse in demand (like China) or one that seems to be determined to be overrun by muslim refugees (like the EU)? You should trade with unstable countries primarily to increase your independence from them, for example, by importing and stockpiling strategic commodities, as China has been doing. OTOH if you have a stable trading partner, you might want to join it in a real free trade bloc.
The country that binds its own citizens will never come out on top of such an encounter. Furthermore, the idea that trade is a weapon of some sort is a problem for an aggressive Statist, not for a free people.
Free Trade is just a method where the internationalists manufacture from the lowest wage nation while exporting to other nations without paying a tariff or VAT.
Mises, leading the gullible down the garden path
"Which means you're in his pocket. And once you're in there, you ain't ever coming out." -Turkish
Imposts, duties and tarriffs are supposed to fund the Federal government. The USA has enough resources for the people to live free and has in the past. Unconstitutional taxes on labor combined with massive corporations, unconstitutional paper "money" and no import taxes combined are destroying our country. Illegal wage taxes cause our labor costs to go up and no import taxes cause the corporations to go overseas to get their labor. The unemployed then collect unconstitutional unemployment from the goverment that just lost that worker's unconstitutionally collected "taxes" on their labor. All compliments of the IGNORANT majority who want to steal from their neighbors and children rather than pay their own way.
There are no big picture mechanisms involved within Capitalism.
The trade of goods can work for the individual consumers and companies but cause problems at the national level.
A good example:
Once one company off-shored it's manufacturing to China, it gained competitive advantage and other companies had to follow suit.
Eventually all companies have off-shored nearly all manufacturing to China and there is no competitive advantage.
The Western economies have been hollowed out and the balance of power shifts to the new power house China.
Then we repeated the process with software design and service activities, like call centres. This time they were off-shored to India, making India stronger and hollowing out the Western economies even further.
The US is now fretting about a powerful China, which was created by allowing Capitalism to do what it does when not restrained.
When short term profit is the only motive, the big picture consequences can be a disaster.
Another good and current example.
Profit can be increased by reducing wages.
When you are the only one that does it you gain competitive advantage.
When everyone has reduced wages to the minimum to maximise profits there is no competitive advantage.
All employees = (approx.) all consumers
Consumers now no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services on offer and demand falls.
Add credit to the mix and you get a disaster, credit fills the gap in purchasing power until the consumer maxes out on credit.
Then his purchasing power is lower than it would have been due to the credit repayments.
Today’s situation.
Bankers have demonstrated why un-regulated free markets are a utopian fantasy.
We de-regulated banks and trusted bankers and they rigged every market they could.
We removed the 1930s legislation designed to prevent another 1929 and they did it again in 2008.
We can thank the bankers for reminding us of the necessity of legislation and why it was enacted in the first place.
There is lots of financial regulation because bankers are incompetent, unscrupulous and entirely without morals.
What is the meaning of the free in the free trade wording.
There is no boss in the building.
The actors but are just free to act their genuine semantic content upon each other, in hope of dire consequences for the unlucky part.
They will have to pay for us, put in a contract that then can be enforced.
Your freedom in such a market place looks like the same supplied on a battlefield, i.e. the freedom to kill.
It's thus appropriate to call such a performance an enslavement tour in which even the winners can't be come in the comfort of to enjoy the idea of to be free, say, not enforced.
Freedom is the result of not been enforced.
You will not teach that to a pirate as it seems a useless maneuver too to inform the sciences of economy about the subject in this way.
A place to settle freedom in in the ongoings of our battlefield markets would be the freedom to decide what to pay or not.
That but is ruled out by the nature of the game. It is conceived to present your advantage of it alike captured birds, having no chance than singing for you.
It's not the trade, it's no specific policy, not the right or wrong religion.
It's the idea to see an asset secure if there are just enough chains on it. There about is all the fever of competition.