Re: More counterprotesting

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 12:42:04 MDT

This is moving a discussion begun on exi-east, questioning why Libertarians
would want to counterprotest against the anti-WTO protesters that are going to
be going on this weekend at the GOP convention in Philladelphis (NOTE: Chris
Fedeli is putting together a counter protest along with folks from the
Competetive Enterprise Institute, and is looking for help):

Jeff Fabijanic wrote:
> At 12:21 PM -0400 7/24/00, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >Libertarians are pro-free trade, pro-immigration,
> Gosh, last time I looked, the WTO wasn't a big booster of these. They're
> into seriously regulated (by the WTO of course) trade and immigration.

The 'regulation' of trade by the WTO is only in limiting the regulation that
signor states can enact or enforce, limiting tariffs and ruling against trade
war inciting activities, like protectionism. The WTO enforces international laws
that mandate the de-regulation of trade between nations.

> >and anti-fake science inspired environmental activism
> What about environmental activism inspired by good science? Biodiversity
> depletion and GM foods are legitimate topics of debate by actual live
> scientists *and* non-scientist citizens. I've read many of the tracks put
> out by various groups opposing GM, for instance, and almost all of them are
> calling not for an outright ban on these products, but for more public
> disclosure and stronger peer review. How is that
> anti-libertarian/extropian? (I see how calls for stronger immediate
> regulation are, but not the calls for fair product labeling and open
> protocols).

The public fronts of protest groups will frequently paint themselves as
moderate, reasonable individuals, and the enemy as extremist nutjobs who are
unwilling to compromise (compromise being defined as the bad guys giving in on
every one of the 'good guys' points). I've seen the same thing on the
gun-control front, Jeff, and its the same old song and dance. Their idea of
'strong' peer review is that the anti-GM scientists should be given seats on the
juries of academic journals so they can vote down and protest the publishing of
any studies on Genetic engineering work. Their idea of science has been
repeatedly shown as a) only accepting that work that fit their prejudices, and
b) consistently WRONG theories and conclusions. My cousin's work in Antarctica
last year proved that the leftist theories of cataclysmic collapse of the
Antarctic Ice Cap being promulgated by scientists at the University of
Washington were totally bogus, that the ice cap has been stable for 22 million
years, since the last major asteroid triggered extinction.

> >and anti-government environmental regulation.
> Again, the WTO is a big believer in this. If by 'government' one means the
> WTO. So why oppose an anti-WTO group if you're motivated primarily by
> libertarianism? Seems to me that protesting the corrupt two-party system
> that encourages cronyism and corporatism in government would be more to the
> point.

The WTO, as it administers the GATT treaty, is very silent on environmental
issues that are restricted within a single country. The only environmental
mandates in GATT are to species that inhabit or migrate through two or more
national ecologies. Anti-WTO protesters want to use the next round of GATT
negotiations to force Asian, 3rd world, and developing nations to adopt
environmental protection, anti-GM, workplace safety, and minimum wage/union
rights laws that are standard in western industrialized nations. This is the
primary reason why the WTO reps in Seattle could not agree on even beginning the
next round of GATT negotiations, because the reps from less 'westernized'
nations saw the existence of the protest as some sort of subterfuge by Clinton
and the western socialist leaders to try to force these issues onto the agenda
for the next round of negotiations. By refusing to even agree to begin the next
round, they were able to keep the issues off the table, and the protesters
actually, in reality, lost more than they gained.

> >Oh, and they are against economic or real sabotage of private enterprise R&D.
> Protest <> sabotage, as you are undoubtably aware.

No I'm not. Sabotage is low intensity terrorist/insurgency warfare, i.e.
diplomacy by other means. Protest is propaganda warfare.

> Although there certainly
> were acts of vandalism in Seattle, they barely compared to the number of
> episodes of state-sponsored police violence or even to the mayhem found at
> a typical World Cup event. Shall we oppose soccer as an anti-libertarian
> sport?

Please be realistic. The people who are active in organizing and training people
for these protests are the very same people involved in anti-GM and animal
rights sabotage black ops. The OAS meeting in Windsor, Ontario proved this,
where the FBI supplied the Canadian border cops with lists of all people
arrested in leftist political protests or sabotage operations in the US and
convicted of misdemeanors or higher more serious crimes for sabotage, vandalism,
or other such acts. The Canadians arrested literally hundreds of such convicts
at the border and kept them in detention until after the OAS meeting ended.

> I still fail to see how libertarianism and/or extropianism would be served
> by opposing anti-WTO protests.

I hope you are beginning to get an idea.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:12 MDT