Re: WTO an even worse possibility as Inet regulator

[attila <attila@primenet.com>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, James A. Donald wrote:

> At 08:40 PM 11/30/95 +0000, attila wrote:
> >	<attila sez>  but WTO is also accumulating a rather larger 
> >    bureaucracy and is challeng Uncle Sam on severl major unilateral
> >    actions.  [...] and it will be by the WTOs and world courts, or the
> >    Rockefeller NWO --read UN, and UN troops in America. 
> 
> This is excessively paranoid:  The main threat to freedom is still
> internal, rather than external.
>
    	<attila sez #2> I do not think it is particularly paranoid. the 
    trend is set. As the UN accumulates power it gains larger support from
    the third world who significantly out-vote, in terms of US standards
    of one man, one vote traditions. 

	 I also think it is going to be difficult for the permanent 
    members of the security counsel to justify their singular veto power 
    (except China, of course). The UN, as it is currently chartered
    effectively leaves the power in the hands of the security counsel; the
    general assembly generally is a forum for anti-American,
    anti-European, etc. rhetoric. 

	if the UN sets the court with open membership and no vetos, the 
    US is boxed into either defying the court with all the intendant
    public relations problems or surrendering its ecomnomic interests. 

        what it boils down to, a decison must be made between compelling 
    economic interests and one man, one vote; the latter choking the US 
    rather quickly.
 
> The major expansion of WTO power came because of the notorious
> corruption and one sidedness of American courts judging disputes
> between foreign and American businessmen.
>
       <attila sez #2>  got any real samples where forreign courts are 
    impartial to domestic interest v. US interests?
 
> Since WTO courts do not have WTO gunmen this amounts to a major
> separation of judicial and executive power, thus though it is
> a centralizing move, it is also a move that favors liberty an
> the rule of law.
>
        <attila sez #2> I think you're to idealistic as to the results 
    based on ideology!  or, maybe I am too cynical...  :)
 
> Of course the first stages in centralization always do, at first,
> favor liberty and the rule of law as they restrain corrupt and
> lawless local powers.  Later, much later, the centralized power
> becomes a greater threat to liberty than those local authorities
> that it restrained.  
>
	<attila sez #2>  here we agree 100%
 
> That stage is still a long way down the track, and very likely 
> the modern nation state will collapse first.
> 
        <attila sez #2> history is compressing the time frame as 
    new "history" is made.  As for the nation-state collapsing first, no, 
    I think it will be a case of the nation-state being helped along by
    the NWO or whatever globalization of power.

        I would certainly rather believe it is a long way off, but the US 
    is no longer solvent. It has gone from the largest creditor country in
    the world to the largest debtor (v. all the rest of the world
    combined) in a space of less than 50 years.  This is nothing more than
    a self serving bureaucracy promising all things to all people and
    blowing it on basic high school level economics --it is the equivalent
    of kiting checks or credit cards, for which we would go to jail.