T Nation

The American Way of Life Is Non-Negotiable

Bill Moyers interviews Dr. Andrew Bacevich, West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, BU professor and one of the sharpest Cassandras about where we’re headed:

BILL MOYERS: It’s been a long time since I’ve read a book in which I highlighted practically every third sentence. So, it took me a while to read, what is in fact, a rather short book. You began with a quote from the Bible, the Book of Second Kings, chapter 20, verse one. “Set thine house in order.” How come that admonition?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I’ve been troubled by the course of U.S. foreign policy for a long, long time. And I wrote the book in order to sort out my own thinking about where our basic problems lay. And I really reached the conclusion that our biggest problems are within.

I think there’s a tendency on the part of policy makers and probably a tendency on the part of many Americans to think that the problems we face are problems that are out there somewhere, beyond our borders. And that if we can fix those problems, then we’ll be able to continue the American way of life as it has long existed. I think it’s fundamentally wrong. Our major problems are at home.

BILL MOYERS: So, this is a version of “Physician, heal thyself?”

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, yes, “Physician, heal thyself,” and you begin healing yourself by looking at yourself in the mirror and seeing yourself as you really are.

BILL MOYERS: You call us an “empire of consumption.”

ANDREW BACEVICH: I didn’t create that phrase. It’s a phrase drawn from a book by a wonderful historian at Harvard University, Charles Maier, and the point he makes in his very important book is that, if we think of the United States at the apex of American power, which I would say would be the immediate post World War Two period, through the Eisenhower years, into the Kennedy years. We made what the world wanted. They wanted our cars. We exported our television sets, our refrigerators - we were the world’s manufacturing base. He called it an “empire of production.”

BILL MOYERS: Right.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Sometime around the 1960s there was a tipping point, when the “empire of production” began to become the “empire of consumption.” When the cars started to be produced elsewhere, and the television sets, and the socks, and everything else. And what we ended up with was the American people becoming consumers rather than producers.

BILL MOYERS: And you say this has produced a condition of profound dependency, to the extent, and I’m quoting you, “Americans are no longer masters of their own fate.”

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, they’re not. I mean, the current debt to the Chinese government grows day by day. Why? Well, because of the negative trade balance. Our negative trade balance with the world is something in the order of $800 billion per year. That’s $800 billion of stuff that we buy, so that we can consume, that is $800 billion greater than the amount of stuff that we sell to them. That’s a big number. I mean, it’s a big number even relative to the size of our economy.

BILL MOYERS: You’re the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President’s speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word “malaise” in the text to the address. It’s a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don’t act now, we’re headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.

BILL MOYERS: And he lost the election. You in fact say-

ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly.

BILL MOYERS: -this speech killed any chance he had of winning reelection. Why? Because the American people didn’t want to settle for less?

ANDREW BACEVICH: They absolutely did not. And indeed, the election of 1980 was the great expression of that, because in 1980, we have a candidate, perhaps the most skillful politician of our time, Ronald Reagan, who says that, “Doom-sayers, gloom-sayers, don’t listen to them. The country’s best days are ahead of us.”

BILL MOYERS: Morning in America.

ANDREW BACEVICH: It’s Morning in America. And you don’t have to sacrifice, you can have more, all we need to do is get government out of the way, and drill more holes for oil, because the President led us to believe the supply of oil was infinite.

BILL MOYERS: You describe Ronald Reagan as the “modern prophet of profligacy. The politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption.”

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, to understand the truth about President Reagan, is to understand why so much of what we imagined to be our politics is misleading and false. He was the guy who came in and said we need to shrink the size of government. Government didn’t shrink during the Reagan era, it grew.

He came in and he said we need to reduce the level of federal spending. He didn’t reduce it, it went through the roof, and the budget deficits for his time were the greatest they had been since World War Two.

BILL MOYERS: And do you remember that it was his successor, his Vice President, the first President Bush who said in 1992, the American way of life is not negotiable.

ANDREW BACEVICH: And all presidents, again, this is not a Republican thing, or a Democratic thing, all presidents, all administrations are committed to that proposition. Now, I would say, that probably, 90 percent of the American people today would concur. The American way of life is not up for negotiation.

What I would invite them to consider is that, if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, and of course you need to ask yourself, what is it you value most. That if you want to preserve that which you value most in the American way of life, then we need to change the American way of life. We need to modify that which may be peripheral, in order to preserve that which is at the center of what we value.

BILL MOYERS: What do you value most?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think the clearest statement of what I value is found in the preamble to the Constitution. There is nothing in the preamble to the Constitution which defines the purpose of the United States of America as remaking the world in our image, which I view as a fool’s errand. There is nothing in the preamble of the Constitution that ever imagined that we would embark upon an effort, as President Bush has defined it, to transform the Greater Middle East. This region of the world that incorporates something in order of 1.4 billion people.

I believe that the framers of the Constitution were primarily concerned with focusing on the way we live here, the way we order our affairs. To try to ensure that as individuals, we can have an opportunity to pursue our, perhaps, differing definitions of freedom, but also so that, as a community, we could live together in some kind of harmony. And that future generations would also be able to share in those same opportunities.

The big problem, it seems to me, with the current crisis in American foreign policy, is that unless we do change our ways, the likelihood that our children, our grandchildren, the next generation is going to enjoy the opportunities that we’ve had, is very slight, because we’re squandering our power. We are squandering our wealth. In many respects, to the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we’re also going to squander our freedom because imperial policies, which end up enhancing the authority of the imperial president, also end up providing imperial presidents with an opportunity to compromise freedom even here at home. And we’ve seen that since 9/11.

BILL MOYERS: One of the things that comes through in your book is that great truths are contained in small absurdities. And you use the lowly IED, the improvised explosive device, or roadside bomb, that’s taken such a toll of American forces in Iraq, to get at a very powerful truth. Tell me about that.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well war - wars are competitions. The adversary develops capabilities. Your enemy develops capabilities. And you try to develop your own capabilities to check what he can do to you to be able to, overcome his capabilities.

One of the striking things about the Iraq War, and in which we had been fighting against, technologically at least, a relatively backward or primitive adversary, one of the interesting things is they have innovated far more adeptly and quickly than we have.

BILL MOYERS: The insurgents.

ANDREW BACEVICH: The insurgents have. And an example of that is the IED, which began as a very low tech kind of primitive mine. And, over time, became ever more sophisticated, ever more lethal, ever more difficult to detect, ever more difficult to check. And those enhancements in insurgent IED capability continually kept ahead of our ability to innovate and catch up.

BILL MOYERS: And I think you say, in your book, that it costs the price of a pizza to make a roadside bomb?

ANDREW BACEVICH: That’s right. Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: This is what our men and women are up against in Afghanistan-

ANDREW BACEVICH: The point is to say that the reality of war is always a heck of a lot more complicated than you might imagine the day before the war begins. And, rather than looking to technology to define the future of warfare, we ought to look - really look at military history.

BILL MOYERS: How, then, do we fight what you acknowledge, in the book, is the perfectly real threat posed by violent Islamic extremism?

ANDREW BACEVICH: I think we need to see the threat for what it is. It is a real threat. It’s not an existential threat. The 19 hijackers that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 didn’t succeed because they had advanced technology, because they were particularly smart, because they were ten feet tall.

They succeeded because we let our guard down and we were stupid. We need to recognize that the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism, by terrorist organizations, al Qaeda, really is akin to a criminal conspiracy, a violent conspiracy, a dangerous conspiracy. But it’s a criminal enterprise. And the primary response to a criminal enterprise is policing.

Policing as in organizations like the FBI, intelligence organizations, some special operations forces. That would undertake a concerted campaign to identify and root out and destroy this criminal conspiracy. But that doesn’t require invading and occupying countries. Again, one of the big mistakes the Bush Administration made, and it’s a mistake we’re still paying for, is that the President persuaded us that the best way to prevent another 9/11 is to embark upon a global war. Wrong. The best way to prevent another 9/11 is to organize an intensive international effort to root out and destroy that criminal conspiracy.

ANDREW BACEVICH: One of the great lies about American politics is that Democrats genuinely subscribe to a set of core convictions that make Democrats different from Republicans. And the same thing, of course, applies to the other party. It’s not true. I happen to define myself as a conservative.

Well, what do conservatives say they stand for? Well, conservatives say they stand for balanced budgets. Small government. The so called traditional values.

Well, when you look back over the past 30 or so years, since the rise of Ronald Reagan, which we, in many respects, has been a conservative era in American politics, well, did we get small government?

Do we get balanced budgets? Do we get serious as opposed to simply rhetorical attention to traditional social values? The answer’s no. Because all of that really has simply been part of a package of tactics that Republicans have employed to get elected and to - and then to stay in office.

I don’t think we actually support the troops. We the people. What we the people do is we contract out the business of national security to approximately 0.5 percent of the population. About a million and a half people that are on active duty.

And then we really turn away. We don’t want to look when they go back for two or three or four or five combat tours. That’s not supporting the troops. That’s an abdication of civic responsibility. And I do think it - there’s something fundamentally immoral about that.

Again, as I tried to say, I think the global war on terror, as a framework of thinking about policy, is deeply defective. But if one believes in the global war on terror, then why isn’t the country actually supporting it? In a meaningful substantive sense?

Where is the country?

BILL MOYERS: Are you calling for a reinstatement of the draft?

ANDREW BACEVICH: I’m not calling for a reinstatement of the draft because I understand that, politically, that’s an impossibility. And, to tell you the truth, we don’t need to have an army of six or eight or ten million people. But we do need to have the country engaged in what its soldiers are doing. In some way that has meaning. And that simply doesn’t exist today.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html

Good one.

Damnation that’s a great interview. Phenomenal. Made me think pretty deeply. (I always do, but sometimes it helps to have something to tweak a change in the areas I think about).

I think that is fundamentally correct. Also, if you look at history, the decay of a great power is often hand in hand with the concentration of that great power on events at the periphery of, or outside of, it’s borders, along with a movement towards entertainment or stagnant complacency. It’s not the only reason, of course, but it does play a rather significant role. Rome, the height of British power, France, Russia. All have different manifestations, and some are more clear cut and more pervasive than others, but they all incorporate core aspects of what Bacevich talks about.

The other thing I think that he touches on, but doesn’t explicitly talk about, is a sense of entitlement that we in America have become increasingly accepting and indulgent of.

Herein lies another of the major flaws I see. There are many more than 1 primary example, but the easiest to point out is directly after 9/11 when the president asked America to go on with it’s life as normal. What he should have asked for, what other presidents asked for in times of tragedy and trauma, was that we all pull together and sacrifice to obtain some grand goal.

JFK “ask not what your country can do for you…”, FDR and WW2, etc etc. That attitude always, ALWAYS led to success. Perhaps not in the specific way or the specific goal we first thought of, but in the end our willingness to sacrifice things for the achievement of something great always led to greater prosperity for the country, or it’s recovery from something, or victory.

That was the attitude that defined and created the “Greatest Generation” and the height of American power. It is also what garnered good will with the rest of the world. Not appeasement, nor isolationism, nor unilateral action, nor even multinational coalitions. The methods (whether unilateral or not) were the result of a clear-headedness that is no longer around in any real powerful sense. (And no, I don’t think that either of our two presidential candidates convey this clearheadedness. But I’d really like this thread to stay away from the election and on the interview itself…)

“Who watches PBS?” – F. Crane

While the American Way of Life may be Non-Negotiable, can this behemoth change course?

He should stay away from economics. Not impressive.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
He should stay away from economics. Not impressive.[/quote]

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but what specifically are you referring to?

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
dhickey wrote:
He should stay away from economics. Not impressive.

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but what specifically are you referring to?[/quote]

His whole argument that we are doomed becuase we have gone from an “empire of production” to an “empire of consumption”. There are pleny of ways to make a living and manufacturing is no better or worse that many other industries. If we wanted to remain a manufacturing giant we certainly could. It would just mean a reduction in quality of life. Who wants to live like the Chinese? No thanks.

He says that we are now consumers and not producers. This is false. We do not consume more than we produce in real value. If this were even possible it would be a good thing. What we produced may have changed but we are indeed producing more. As much as we consume. It matters not that most of our manufactured goods are made overseas. It matters not that we consume more. More consumption = better quality of life. There is nothing wrong with a better quality of life.

I have no idea where he gets his infomation on our trade deficite with the world. These calculations are rarely even close to being accruate. If he is talking about gov’t debt, fine, but the market does not allow trade deficites. Again, it would be great if it did. This would mean that we are getting 800billion dollars of stuff for free every year.

Talk to me when our quality of life is in decline, and then I will be concerned. We have a long way to fall before we equal the quality of life that the manufacturing giants enjoy.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life. [/quote]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.[/quote]

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve. [/quote]

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.[/quote]

I have the feeling this could take longer.

Start a new thread please and post what your specific problem is and I will think about it.

Make fun of everyone who mentions Iraq in your thread.

I am disappointed that Liberals vs Serviles is not appreciated enough.

They called themselves “Serviles” !

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.[/quote]

Influx of people is not a marketable asset like merchandise and money.

Only if you can buy and sell these people on an open market will they be the same as merchandise.

[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.

I have the feeling this could take longer.

Start a new thread please and post what your specific problem is and I will think about it. [/quote]

Nah. I just wanted your point of view in a nutshell, assuming you have one.

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.

I have the feeling this could take longer.

Start a new thread please and post what your specific problem is and I will think about it.

Nah. I just wanted your point of view in a nutshell, assuming you have one.[/quote]

How it is that people are for a free flow of goods and services but not people?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
More consumption = better quality of life.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth Evil feeds upon.

This Ladies and Gentleman is the fucking truth and only narrowed mindedness regarding what can be a consumer good prolongues this nonsense.

Only after some basic needs are met are we free to pursue what could be called “spiritual goals”. And by investing time and money to pursue them, we also “consume”.

And ascete living on a stick forgoes all earthly pleasures to purify his soul. That however is also an individual preference that costs him other opportunities, it is “consumption” , nothing else.

Plus a totally unrelated gem I found yesterday:

The opposite of the “Liberals” were the “Serviles” when it came to the Spanish discussion whether to have a constitution or not, which is where the “liberals” (old meaning), got their names from-

They, at least, knew what options there were.

Trade free or serve.

Don’t be obtuse.

Quality of life doesn’t increase linearly with consumption. There is a threshold at which it start to decrease dramatically. In many respects, pollution, obesity and other ills are directly related to overconsumption.

Free trade is a good idea. Not argument there. What I’m preaching here is that people act like they got some sense and stop thinking that more is necessarily better (which Dhickey’s post implies).

And while we’re on the subject, where do you stand on the movement of people (as opposed to wealth and merchandise)? Because everytime I have this argument with some down-with-the-barriers type of person, I get the dogs-at-the-border nationalistic speech as well. I’m curious about your position.

Influx of people is not a marketable asset like merchandise and money.

Only if you can buy and sell these people on an open market will they be the same as merchandise. [/quote]

Isn’t that what the job market is about?

Think about it: Jobs are constantly being relocated to countries where people are willing to work for cheaper. That’s a consequence of not allowing people to move around freely. If you liberalized that, jobs would stay where they are and taxes would be paid to your state instead of an Asian or African one.

I personally find the idea that “things” are freer than people revolting.

We’ll put a boot in your ass. It is the American way.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Isn’t that what the job market is about?[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]Think about it: Jobs are constantly being relocated to countries where people are willing to work for cheaper. That’s a consequence of not allowing people to move around freely. If you liberalized that, jobs would stay where they are and taxes would be paid to your state instead of an Asian or African one.

I personally find the idea that “things” are freer than people revolting.[/quote]

People are free. That’s why you can’t buy and sell them. Merchandise costs money to buy, or manufacture. People don’t.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Isn’t that what the job market is about?

Nope. [/quote]

Huh. I could have swore it’s where people’s time and competences were traded.

You say that. Yet, loads of people escape dictatorships or economic hardship everyday just to be jailed, abused and treated like cattle on the other side.

People were truly free back in the days where you could hop on a bandwagon and roam the world without the need for visas and other restrictions. Nowadays, the barriers seem to be higher than ever.

The boob-job of the prostitute in the Red District cost her money, and that’s exactly what she’s selling: her body.

But that’s an extreme example. Generally, people trade their skills for money on an open market. My education, which I’m trading openly in the job market cost me money. Why shouldn’t I be able to sell my time and competences to the highest bidder without restrictions?

It’s just a personal observation (feel free to disregard it), but the argument that goods should flow freely, more often than not goes hand-in-hand with the issue of “foreigners are taking our jobs”. If you pay close attention to political campaigns, that becomes quite obvious.

Don’t get me wrong. I support the right to do whatever you will in your country, including not letting anyone in. It’s just that a Locke or Smith would frown on that.

I took care of answering this on my latest thread.