03 Dec 99

I recently took an oline poll about the protests in Seattle, Washington. The question was something to the effect of "What do you think of the protesters in Seattle, Washington?" The answers were:

A: I hate those fools

B: No opinion

C: More power to them

I chose A, and I'll tell you why. As I watched the drama unfold on television, one thought kept revealing itself to me. "How could anyone take these people seriously?" This great conglomeration of people was comprised of Buchananites, Socialists, Anarchists, Animal Rights Activists, Environmentalists, Big Labor, and God knows who else.

We saw the animal rights activists and environmentalists dressed up in animal costums, carrying things like coffins that read "Butterflies say no to the WTO!" Do they really? The radical fringes of these groups were partly responsible for the vandalism and looting that occurred early on.

The Buchananites politicized the event as "The great selling out of America." Their whole philosophy is based on a hodgepodge of quasi-socialism, conservatism, isolationism, and dare I say it...totalitarianism. Pat Buchanan continuously rails against other countries for their policies regarding human rights. At the same time he calls for strict immigration control and a strongly regulated trade policy. Well, which is it? Human rights or a policies that restrict human rights? Perhaps in his world, he really can have it both ways. No wonder so many people see right through him.

Big labor wanted you to know that it was basic workers rights they strove for. All the while, they stood silently by as over two million dollars of property damage was being done to downtown Seattle businesses. Not to mention over three million dollars of lost revenue and wages. What about the rights of those workers? Well, maybe they didn't belong to a union and therefore did not count. Union members weren't directly responsible for this destruction, but then again, they did nothing to stop it. Over 20,000 members strong and collectively they did not or could not raise a voice of objection, much less condemnation towards those involved. Workers rights indeed.

Even those who were not directly involved in the vandalism were quick to tell any listening news crew "We have the right to free speech, we have the right to protest!" But at what and at whose expense? What of the rights of ordinary citizens wishing to travel freely to and from work? I remember clearly the image of a distraught woman sitting in her car in the middle of the melee. "I'm terrified!" she said, "I want to get out of here, I've got my baby in the back seat and I've got to get her out of here!" What of this woman's rights and the hundreds of thousands of other Seattle residents held hostage in their own city? Whose basic human rights are being violated here?

Now, this all begs the question. How many of these protesters took advantage of cheap gasoline to find their way to Seattle? How many were wearing Nike shoes, or clothes made using cheap labor? How many had ever partaken of a cup of Starbucks Coffee? Maybe if they all walked to Seattle, while wearing clothes weaved from hemp or cotton grown in their backyard, all the while standing passively on the sidewalk, allowing everyone to go freely on their way, I would have some respect for them. I would not have agreed with what they were saying, but they would have been practicing what they preached.

The hypocrisy astounds me. Never mind that the United States is as rich as it is today partly because of liberal trade policies. Never mind that with wealth and innovation comes far reaching benefits, such as better health, a higher living standard, a longer life span, cheaper goods, etc.... Never mind that it will ultimately be individuals and advanced technology, not sea turtles and government, that will fix the problems that come with prosperity. These problems being environmental, poverty, and discrimination. (If you don't believe me, take a look at any country with a small or non-existent technological base and a strong central government. Rwanda, Burma and Russia come to mind.) Never mind all that. What is at stake here is the basic human right for any one individual to engage in trade with any other consenting individual.

Labor is worried that if given this right, American jobs will suffer. My answer to that is a question. What about all the other jobs that will be created elsewhere? Labor also believes that if trade is unrestricted, foreign countries will saturate the market with cheap goods and put American companies under. For example, Ford makes a car and sells it for $31,000. However, Korea can offer you a comparable car for only $21,000. People start buying Korean cars en masse, Ford has to make up the cost of lost revenue and starts laying people off. Therefore, according to Big Labor, free trade destroys jobs and a $10.000 tariff must be imposed on every new Korean car entering the United States.

This scenario misses a very important fact. That is, every American who chooses to buy the Korean car for $21,000, versus the American car for $31,000, now has a surplus of $10,000 on their hands. Quite simply, they are $10,000 richer and as a consequence, so is society. That is $10,000 dollars that can now be spent on other items. It could be invested, used to buy a boat, remodel the house or on any number of different consumer goods. That savings of $10,000 dollars per person will undoubtedly be responsible for creating numerous jobs, eventually finding its way to those who may have been laid off because Ford could not compete at low prices. Individuals and society as a whole are better off buying cheaper goods.

But, whatever will the executives at Ford do? They will obviously have to find ways to cut production costs. One option would be to lay off X amount of people to a point where manufacturing cars would once again become profitable. Another option would be to keep everyone employed by reducing every ones wages from its artificial high to a point the market could bear.

Big Labor most likely would oppose both of these options. Maybe a full-blown strike would be called, possibly driving the price of production up even more. Or maybe enough pressure would be brought to bear on the executives of Ford to uphold the status quo. In that case, Ford's only choice may well be to seek protectionist measures, lest they go completely out of business. These protectionist measures will only rob prospective car buyers of one more choice and effectively makes them $10,000 poorer.

So, the question is this. Are you, as a consumer, willing to fork over $10,000 dollars for higher wages and job security for people you may not even know in Detroit? If your answer is yes, then consider this. By paying $10,000 less, you are guarantying a higher wage and job security for people you don't even know in Korea. You may think that Americans deserve these things more than Koreans. If this is the case, you are arguing an entirely different point.

Environmentalists want to restrict your right to free trade because they perceive a threat to any number of environmental issues. Deforestation, strip mining, ocean dumping, animal rights, ad infinitum....

Will the environment suffer as underdeveloped countries break into the industrial age? Probably. Is this a bad thing? Well, let's look at the benefits versus the costs.

I would have to guess that people in these countries would be willing to put up with dirty air in exchange for the higher living standard that technology brings. They might even put up with polluted water, strip mining, chlorofluorocarbons, or any number of other "environmental hazards". To the people of these countries, the cost of living with these problems for the short term, may well be outweighed by the benefits in the long term. Lower infant mortality rate, longer life span, abundant food, more wealth and prosperity, etc....

As technology advances, the quality of the air and water gets better. When we restrict free trade, we restrict the exchange of technology. When technology becomes stagnant and does not advance, neither does the quality of the environment. Countries like China and Russia do not have the technology and resources in place to control their massive environmental problems. You can partially thank those self proclaimed "environmentalists" in Seattle for that.

Now, it's all over. Most of the protesters have made their speeches, they have banged on the drums, danced in the streets, sang silly songs, they have yelled and screamed, and we have heard them. Unfortunately, what they had to say was of little substance. Over and over we heard "It's time we did something about corporate greed!" or "Who speaks for the animals?" or "With free trade, all American businesses will move overseas." or "Who will protect us from cheap labor?" Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, on and on it goes. I watched the news every night and very seldom were these ridiculous statements challenged. I wonder why that is.

There was one scene that played over and over again the first night of the protests that particularly caught my attention. A young woman, whom I assume to be of Asian decent, broke from the crowd screaming hysterically at a news camera "They're killing us!" I don't know what aspect of free trade she was protesting, but I do know that she was able to be there because of one reason. At some point in history, her family immigrated to the United States to find a better life. She would now deny that kind of life for the billions of people who are unfortunate enough not to be an American, and the millions that are.

They're killing you? I'm sorry young lady. The fact of the matter is, you're killing yourself, and you're dragging us all down with you.

-Justin M. Stoddard