Don't worry. Bush & Co. will be at the ICC in 10 years.
And don't try "Well Bush didn't sign for the ICC, so they're not party to it!" NSDAP didn't sign any Nuremberg trial treaty, but we still got Woods to fudge the gallows to strangle them to death.
But they definitely are not scared of the unhealthy habit of exercise avoidance, which is what driving, when one can spend the extra time to walk or ride a bike, instills in your children.
I don't care about the progress of mankind. I may be a man, but I am not mankind. So, I do not seek the progression of humanists. Just as I may be Germanic, I am not the German "race." So, I do not seek the progression of the Aryans/Nazis, or some such rabble.
"And even more so, given that Israel had no legitimate reason to attack Lebanon AT ALL."
Well, Lebanon is a part of Eretz Yisrael Haslemah, as promised to Abraham by God. God promised the Nation of Israel all the lands of the Canaanites as described in Genesis 15:18-21.
This would mean that many people from Israel would consider it their right to do what they want with those lands; they would consider people not of the Nation of Israel to be trespassers on those lands. This is an unalienable right they would say, as it is described in Abraham Stern's 18 Principles of Rebirth, which is also describes Israel's right to use any force necessary to secure all the lands promised to them by God.
So it's not exactly right to say they have no right to bomb them: because apparently God gives them that right.
Women do not like to have sex. They only do it to gain some advantage.
This is why smart guys don't stare at hot women, because they know nothing can come of it except sexual frustration.
This is also why men suffer so many mental disorders. Because of the not-so sublimated frustration of never getting what they really want without some major strings attached. They all dream of sexual experiences with beautiful women but they can never get it unless they pay the price. And this is where pornography comes in.
"The winner of the game is decided so early on in play, 80% of the time spent playing the game is virtually pointless because everyone can tell who is going to win (unless he/she makes an incredibly dumb trade or someone cheats)."
How so? If one player gets really good properties and is on top, then the other players, if they are interested in winning, are going to team up in order to bring down the top player, so that he doesn't win.
Donald Rumsfeld's knowledge that encouraging terrorism is good has long been known by millionaire and billionaire criminal types like him. This is why Israel state leaders funded the Islamic Authority and Hamas.
Without terrorists, why would people hand their money over to people like Rumsfeld?
What are the public's self-interests? Does the public even have self-interests?
It seems to me the public is filled with innumerable different interests, and almost as many contradictions between them. How can these be reduced to a discrete self-interests of the public in general?
I would saw I'm libertarian in some sense, but I wouldn't treat the common parlance corporation(like a Delaware corporation) as a private individual. Certainly not directly, just because, plainly, they're not people. And not indirectly as you mean(if I understand you correctly) because, first of all, corporations like Delaware corporations are granted priveleges by the government which foists liability onto the public. Officially this is justified because the government has decided that it increases the public good and apparently the public has granted the government the right to do so. To some extent this makes them agents of the state. Also, corporations are commonly underwritten or financed in other ways by financial institutions which can loan out with fractional reserves of central bank notes. This subsidizes these institutions with public wealth. The government grants this privelege as well. Certainly corporations which are subsidized by public wealth musn't be considered private persons. What business would the government have in taking the money of the public and just handing it over to select private persons(personified corporations)!
As opposed to "audoiphile" marketers using sciencebabble that impresses the audiophile consumer, but is absolutely ludicrous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of physics.
As opposed to "physicist" marketers using science that impresses the physicist consumer, but is absolutely ludicrous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge in being cool. Put away the periodic tables, dorks. Those'll never pick up chicks.
I don't think you've recognized my handle, because you seem to think I like Ayn Rand, which I don't. In fact, I've posted on this site quite disparaging remarks on Ayn Rand/Objectivism. I have posted crazier ideas before though; I go off on all sorts of tangents.
You've thrown a lot of things around in your second paragraph there. Most of them essentially non sequitors. Why would I necessarily be taking advantage of the police sitting around on my private land? Let them not protect me if I haven't paid for their services. I don't believe anyone owns the oxygen that crosses onto my land; I think I would have the property rights to the air that hovers over my land. Doesn't matter if someone else could breathe that. Someone else could eat my food too, doesn't mean they're entitled to take it from me when I don't want them to. I have a big ol' septic field. Or even, me and my neighbours decided to setup a sewer system that we'd share the costs and benefits of, because we decided that would be better. Again, I think the water on my land, wether or not it is part of the same aquifier as my neighbour, would be mine. The comment on the unidentified person is just plain baffling to me. How would it be different in a free-association system and in a state-controlled-association system? If he can't be identified in the first, why so in the latter? I agree it would be pretty bad to have my water poisoned by someone, but if he's unidentifiable, then there's not much that can be done, regardless of the state.
This of course brings me directly to the issue at hand here. If they're not telling the truth in the courts in the libertarian sytem, why so in your's? So your solution is to make polluters to pay extra taxes which then go towards paying for I'm not sure what, but hopefully something that will at least lessen the injustice. Why would they tell the truth in your tax-forms? "13.A.G.34. How much shit and tar do you put into the air? None."
You seem to make some comment that in your system, the government would go in and check how much they pollute. I don't see why they couldn't in mine either. If the court sees the people pumping some black smoke into the air and they see reasonable cause to allow investigation, they could allow it. Just like how the police will arrest someone they see assaulting another, despite the fact that he has not been found guilty. There's reasonable cause to hold him for a hearing in court.
You could easily have class-action lawsuits(with both plaintiff and defendent classes). Get all the people you know to be harmed in some way by air pollution together. Identify any number of polluters you know to put a pollution which causes the harm the plaintiffs have sustained into the air. Show that they do pollute, how much they pollute and then show the probabilities. You don't have to trace every particle. Show the probabilities of the different defendendants' pollution had in entering the lungs of the different plaintiffs. Set whatever the amount of compensation each plaintiff should recieve, and reference these to the share, some function of the probabilities, the polluters had in hurting them.
Difficult, but with a class of people getting together pulling from scientific knowledge, they could demonstrate this. If it can't be demonstrated in a reasonable way that the polluters are harming these people, then again...how do you know the polluters are harming them, and then what business would we have seeking money from them, wether through taxes or direct compensation?
I wouldn't think that you would have to track each and every particle. You'd probably just have to offer evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt showed that they hurt you. If you don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they hurt you, then...how do you know they hurt you?
Not to say them just hurting you in common parlance sort of sense would be the only way they would have to pay compensation in a free market. If they are polluting, that pollution is going somewhere, if it's not going into their private land, its going into someone else's private property or public property. If its not welcome there, its essentially just littering or vandalism by negligence. In a free market they would have to pay compensation for this too. Certainly it would not be hard to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt how even an individual car pollutes public property. I'd be happy to start a law firm with the sole purpose of suing polluters if it was a free market and there were so many of them as there are now.
I'm sorry that my sloppy use of the term has offended you. I said member of a market because we were talking in terms of markets, and specifically to market failures. I was drawing an analogy between derailed trains and pollution. What market? The entire market of associations I suppose, doesn't really matter, It's just a little analogy. What membership? Not a card-carrying one I guess, how does "participant" instead of "member" sound? Pollution was called a market externality. I thought maybe the reader would definitely consider some properties like derailed trains and houses to be market internalities instead. I drew the analogy between derailed trains and pollution and how they can act the same way. In light of this, maybe pollution could at least be considered to be in the market like the other property, rather than being an externality? Yes, no?
Sure its legitimate for people to elect governments to act in that manner. Its just not legitimate to force people to do things they don't want to do when they're not hurting anyone. Sitting around on your private land is not hurting one. Why force these people to pay taxes, even if you're hoping to compensate someone else? You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You've just moved the injustice. Those people who elect for the government to enact those policies can pay for those actions. I think you should leave the people who want nothing to do with any of it alone.
Why would there have to be any negative externalities in a free market?
Take your example of pollution. Everyone is liable for the damage they cause others in a free market. If pollution causes damage, they would have to compensate those they have hurt.
Pollution may be a text-book example of a market failure, but not a failure of a free market. At what time -- and to what extent -- was there last an actual free market in which such a failure could have happened?
If a member of the market goes out and crashes his trains into your house and you never recieve compensation, that's not a market failure, it's a judicial or legal failure. Exact same with pollution. If polluters are harming public or private properties or persons, they must make good. If they are not making good it's not a market failure.
Of course many polluters love US statist regulation of the market. Because with this regulation it forces people to sit down and take the pollution without compensation. If the government deregulated the market, such polluters wouldn't stand a chance, because they cause massive amounts of damage to properties every year and many physical ailments to people and probably deaths too. They would be penniless, if not sitting in prison for criminal actions.
I think 99% of armchair libertarians insist on letting the market sort it out because of morality, not because it works better. They believe that people should be free to associate with others however they please. Because the market is just a name for the system of associations people have with other, the state should not be allowed to control the market because that means controlling the associations of people. Regardless of the prosperity or security it may or may not bring.
'... when the shit hit the fans you will just have to sit there and blame it on the "left". '
Of course you hear this a lot already, with the Iraq occupation supposedly going poorly.
The left is hurting the war in on terrorism/Iraq/whatever because they are demoralizing the troops.
If the US comes out of Iraq and it is considered a failure, the pundits will absolutely blame the left for the failure of the operation for just that reason.
You're kind of saying something different from what your words implied in your original post there, I think.
I won't disagree with what you say in this post, because I'm not really sure it relates very strongly with the article and I'm sincerely quite baffled and fear my being trolled.
I think the position he's communicating is that a human life is like the cake. The cake is not a cake until it is done. Until then it's just a bunch of ingredients, which may or may not be something special, something "unlike" the ingredients themselves. So a human being is not there until the embryo/foetus(exact terminology I'm not sure on) has finished gestation.
He can do any of those, and he should be allowed to if agreements are mutual. The government may not let him, but that just makes them in the wrong, not the store owner.
If a shop owner doesn't want black people in his store, so be it. Black people don't have to go there, and I'm not sure why they would want to give money to someone who dislikes them as such. It's his store, he can make whatever poor business decisions he wants with regards to it.
If the agreement of buying something at his store is "if you're the third customer, I will kill you!" and people agree to this deal, so be it. It's his store and its their lives to do with as they see fit, not the government's.
He can spy on his customers if they agree to be spied on. The government should let store owners and store patrons be to make whatever mutual agreements they want.
" Sometimes when things like this happen, we are too jazzed to think clearly about our location. If it is automatically sent, all the better."
Then have it automatically sent. Why does the government need to track the location? The device can know its location. Then when it phones 911 it can send its location automatically to emergency services.
Why does the government have to track it at all or any time?
It has been shown that people will pay the current prices for electricity. Will it go down from that just because costs go down? Highly unlikely. Only in competitive markets do prices go down with costs. The energy market is not competitive.
The left-wing media thing isn't really so much wrong as it is actually meaningless and just used for identity politics and attacking those identities.
They just call the media "liberal" and then name their political enemies "liberal." Wether or not their political enemies actual agree with the common views or share the biases of the media or not. Many times even calling them "liberal" when they are sharply at odds with the media.
This is of advantage because now their political enemies are the big bad guys who victimize them, rather than the other way around. They're the underdogs fighting against this massive liberal propaganda machine. Anyone who opposes them are, of course, "liberals" and, as such, are in ideological and political cahoots with this machine, because it's "liberal" too.
So it's not wrong, it's just that's it doesn't say anything. The media are liberals. Liberals are the media. We are the conservatives victimized by the media. We are against liberals and only liberals. You are against us, so you are liberal. You victimize us.
How could you be so blind to evil that you would agree with those that unfairly attack and wage a propaganda war against the conservatives?
Free trade? Ask the average person, "Is free trade a good thing?" They'll probably say yes. Then ask them, "What is free trade?" A few will probably know, but not many.
So let's name a bill that brings more state regulation as a "free trade" bill. When really the only was it's a free trade bill is because it deals with free trade...in an antithetical manner.
Then the editorials and columnists section can say, "In the debate of the new CAFTA bill we must remember the benefits of free trade. La de dah Wealth of Nations la la la comparative advantage. We should pass this free trade bill, CAFTA, because free trade is good for everyone."
As a side note(since this isn't really on topic anymore), the bill still faced quite a bit of opposition I see maybe people did see through this naming scheme, which I doubt. I guess many have grown disillusioned with "free trade," which I don't hold against them seeing as to what marches under the banner of it now.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry. Bush & Co. will be at the ICC in 10 years.
And don't try "Well Bush didn't sign for the ICC, so they're not party to it!" NSDAP didn't sign any Nuremberg trial treaty, but we still got Woods to fudge the gallows to strangle them to death.
The Greek would definitely have a contracted eta for just "Googlarchy."
I'm not totally sure what they're scared of.
But they definitely are not scared of the unhealthy habit of exercise avoidance, which is what driving, when one can spend the extra time to walk or ride a bike, instills in your children.
And take up humanism? No thanks.
I don't care about the progress of mankind. I may be a man, but I am not mankind. So, I do not seek the progression of humanists. Just as I may be Germanic, I am not the German "race." So, I do not seek the progression of the Aryans/Nazis, or some such rabble.
I totally agree.
Almost everyone says when asked, "I can't sing." That's bullshit. Everyone can sing. Make any sound you want.
"And even more so, given that Israel had no legitimate reason to attack Lebanon AT ALL."
Well, Lebanon is a part of Eretz Yisrael Haslemah, as promised to Abraham by God. God promised the Nation of Israel all the lands of the Canaanites as described in Genesis 15:18-21.
This would mean that many people from Israel would consider it their right to do what they want with those lands; they would consider people not of the Nation of Israel to be trespassers on those lands. This is an unalienable right they would say, as it is described in Abraham Stern's 18 Principles of Rebirth, which is also describes Israel's right to use any force necessary to secure all the lands promised to them by God.
So it's not exactly right to say they have no right to bomb them: because apparently God gives them that right.
This is a well-documented fact.
Women do not like to have sex. They only do it to gain some advantage.
This is why smart guys don't stare at hot women, because they know nothing can come of it except sexual frustration.
This is also why men suffer so many mental disorders. Because of the not-so sublimated frustration of never getting what they really want without some major strings attached. They all dream of sexual experiences with beautiful women but they can never get it unless they pay the price. And this is where pornography comes in.
"The winner of the game is decided so early on in play, 80% of the time spent playing the game is virtually pointless because everyone can tell who is going to win (unless he/she makes an incredibly dumb trade or someone cheats)."
How so? If one player gets really good properties and is on top, then the other players, if they are interested in winning, are going to team up in order to bring down the top player, so that he doesn't win.
Donald Rumsfeld's knowledge that encouraging terrorism is good has long been known by millionaire and billionaire criminal types like him. This is why Israel state leaders funded the Islamic Authority and Hamas.
Without terrorists, why would people hand their money over to people like Rumsfeld?
What are the public's self-interests? Does the public even have self-interests?
It seems to me the public is filled with innumerable different interests, and almost as many contradictions between them. How can these be reduced to a discrete self-interests of the public in general?
I would saw I'm libertarian in some sense, but I wouldn't treat the common parlance corporation(like a Delaware corporation) as a private individual. Certainly not directly, just because, plainly, they're not people. And not indirectly as you mean(if I understand you correctly) because, first of all, corporations like Delaware corporations are granted priveleges by the government which foists liability onto the public. Officially this is justified because the government has decided that it increases the public good and apparently the public has granted the government the right to do so. To some extent this makes them agents of the state. Also, corporations are commonly underwritten or financed in other ways by financial institutions which can loan out with fractional reserves of central bank notes. This subsidizes these institutions with public wealth. The government grants this privelege as well. Certainly corporations which are subsidized by public wealth musn't be considered private persons. What business would the government have in taking the money of the public and just handing it over to select private persons(personified corporations)!
fervent software
Offers a Linux distribution based on Debian designed for audio work.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/
Offers packages to be installed over Fedora for audio.
As opposed to "audoiphile" marketers using sciencebabble that impresses the audiophile consumer, but is absolutely ludicrous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of physics.
As opposed to "physicist" marketers using science that impresses the physicist consumer, but is absolutely ludicrous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge in being cool. Put away the periodic tables, dorks. Those'll never pick up chicks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cromulent
I don't think you've recognized my handle, because you seem to think I like Ayn Rand, which I don't. In fact, I've posted on this site quite disparaging remarks on Ayn Rand/Objectivism. I have posted crazier ideas before though; I go off on all sorts of tangents.
You've thrown a lot of things around in your second paragraph there. Most of them essentially non sequitors. Why would I necessarily be taking advantage of the police sitting around on my private land? Let them not protect me if I haven't paid for their services. I don't believe anyone owns the oxygen that crosses onto my land; I think I would have the property rights to the air that hovers over my land. Doesn't matter if someone else could breathe that. Someone else could eat my food too, doesn't mean they're entitled to take it from me when I don't want them to. I have a big ol' septic field. Or even, me and my neighbours decided to setup a sewer system that we'd share the costs and benefits of, because we decided that would be better. Again, I think the water on my land, wether or not it is part of the same aquifier as my neighbour, would be mine. The comment on the unidentified person is just plain baffling to me. How would it be different in a free-association system and in a state-controlled-association system? If he can't be identified in the first, why so in the latter? I agree it would be pretty bad to have my water poisoned by someone, but if he's unidentifiable, then there's not much that can be done, regardless of the state.
This of course brings me directly to the issue at hand here. If they're not telling the truth in the courts in the libertarian sytem, why so in your's? So your solution is to make polluters to pay extra taxes which then go towards paying for I'm not sure what, but hopefully something that will at least lessen the injustice. Why would they tell the truth in your tax-forms? "13.A.G.34. How much shit and tar do you put into the air? None."
You seem to make some comment that in your system, the government would go in and check how much they pollute. I don't see why they couldn't in mine either. If the court sees the people pumping some black smoke into the air and they see reasonable cause to allow investigation, they could allow it. Just like how the police will arrest someone they see assaulting another, despite the fact that he has not been found guilty. There's reasonable cause to hold him for a hearing in court.
You could easily have class-action lawsuits(with both plaintiff and defendent classes). Get all the people you know to be harmed in some way by air pollution together. Identify any number of polluters you know to put a pollution which causes the harm the plaintiffs have sustained into the air. Show that they do pollute, how much they pollute and then show the probabilities. You don't have to trace every particle. Show the probabilities of the different defendendants' pollution had in entering the lungs of the different plaintiffs. Set whatever the amount of compensation each plaintiff should recieve, and reference these to the share, some function of the probabilities, the polluters had in hurting them.
Difficult, but with a class of people getting together pulling from scientific knowledge, they could demonstrate this. If it can't be demonstrated in a reasonable way that the polluters are harming these people, then again...how do you know the polluters are harming them, and then what business would we have seeking money from them, wether through taxes or direct compensation?
I wouldn't think that you would have to track each and every particle. You'd probably just have to offer evidence that beyond a reasonable doubt showed that they hurt you. If you don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they hurt you, then...how do you know they hurt you?
Not to say them just hurting you in common parlance sort of sense would be the only way they would have to pay compensation in a free market. If they are polluting, that pollution is going somewhere, if it's not going into their private land, its going into someone else's private property or public property. If its not welcome there, its essentially just littering or vandalism by negligence. In a free market they would have to pay compensation for this too. Certainly it would not be hard to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt how even an individual car pollutes public property. I'd be happy to start a law firm with the sole purpose of suing polluters if it was a free market and there were so many of them as there are now.
I'm sorry that my sloppy use of the term has offended you. I said member of a market because we were talking in terms of markets, and specifically to market failures. I was drawing an analogy between derailed trains and pollution. What market? The entire market of associations I suppose, doesn't really matter, It's just a little analogy. What membership? Not a card-carrying one I guess, how does "participant" instead of "member" sound? Pollution was called a market externality. I thought maybe the reader would definitely consider some properties like derailed trains and houses to be market internalities instead. I drew the analogy between derailed trains and pollution and how they can act the same way. In light of this, maybe pollution could at least be considered to be in the market like the other property, rather than being an externality? Yes, no?
Sure its legitimate for people to elect governments to act in that manner. Its just not legitimate to force people to do things they don't want to do when they're not hurting anyone. Sitting around on your private land is not hurting one. Why force these people to pay taxes, even if you're hoping to compensate someone else? You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. You've just moved the injustice. Those people who elect for the government to enact those policies can pay for those actions. I think you should leave the people who want nothing to do with any of it alone.
Why would there have to be any negative externalities in a free market?
Take your example of pollution. Everyone is liable for the damage they cause others in a free market. If pollution causes damage, they would have to compensate those they have hurt.
Pollution may be a text-book example of a market failure, but not a failure of a free market. At what time -- and to what extent -- was there last an actual free market in which such a failure could have happened?
If a member of the market goes out and crashes his trains into your house and you never recieve compensation, that's not a market failure, it's a judicial or legal failure. Exact same with pollution. If polluters are harming public or private properties or persons, they must make good. If they are not making good it's not a market failure.
Of course many polluters love US statist regulation of the market. Because with this regulation it forces people to sit down and take the pollution without compensation. If the government deregulated the market, such polluters wouldn't stand a chance, because they cause massive amounts of damage to properties every year and many physical ailments to people and probably deaths too. They would be penniless, if not sitting in prison for criminal actions.
I think 99% of armchair libertarians insist on letting the market sort it out because of morality, not because it works better. They believe that people should be free to associate with others however they please. Because the market is just a name for the system of associations people have with other, the state should not be allowed to control the market because that means controlling the associations of people. Regardless of the prosperity or security it may or may not bring.
' ... when the shit hit the fans you will just have to sit there and blame it on the "left". '
Of course you hear this a lot already, with the Iraq occupation supposedly going poorly.
The left is hurting the war in on terrorism/Iraq/whatever because they are demoralizing the troops.
If the US comes out of Iraq and it is considered a failure, the pundits will absolutely blame the left for the failure of the operation for just that reason.
You're kind of saying something different from what your words implied in your original post there, I think.
I won't disagree with what you say in this post, because I'm not really sure it relates very strongly with the article and I'm sincerely quite baffled and fear my being trolled.
He claims that? I thought he's said the exact opposite consistently.
It's an interesting thing to think about, hmmm...
I think the position he's communicating is that a human life is like the cake. The cake is not a cake until it is done. Until then it's just a bunch of ingredients, which may or may not be something special, something "unlike" the ingredients themselves. So a human being is not there until the embryo/foetus(exact terminology I'm not sure on) has finished gestation.
He can do any of those, and he should be allowed to if agreements are mutual. The government may not let him, but that just makes them in the wrong, not the store owner.
If a shop owner doesn't want black people in his store, so be it. Black people don't have to go there, and I'm not sure why they would want to give money to someone who dislikes them as such. It's his store, he can make whatever poor business decisions he wants with regards to it.
If the agreement of buying something at his store is "if you're the third customer, I will kill you!" and people agree to this deal, so be it. It's his store and its their lives to do with as they see fit, not the government's.
He can spy on his customers if they agree to be spied on. The government should let store owners and store patrons be to make whatever mutual agreements they want.
"
Sometimes when things like this happen, we are too jazzed to think clearly about our location. If it is automatically sent, all the better."
Then have it automatically sent. Why does the government need to track the location? The device can know its location. Then when it phones 911 it can send its location automatically to emergency services.
Why does the government have to track it at all or any time?
More like just "demand."
It has been shown that people will pay the current prices for electricity. Will it go down from that just because costs go down? Highly unlikely. Only in competitive markets do prices go down with costs. The energy market is not competitive.
The left-wing media thing isn't really so much wrong as it is actually meaningless and just used for identity politics and attacking those identities.
They just call the media "liberal" and then name their political enemies "liberal." Wether or not their political enemies actual agree with the common views or share the biases of the media or not. Many times even calling them "liberal" when they are sharply at odds with the media.
This is of advantage because now their political enemies are the big bad guys who victimize them, rather than the other way around. They're the underdogs fighting against this massive liberal propaganda machine. Anyone who opposes them are, of course, "liberals" and, as such, are in ideological and political cahoots with this machine, because it's "liberal" too.
So it's not wrong, it's just that's it doesn't say anything. The media are liberals. Liberals are the media. We are the conservatives victimized by the media. We are against liberals and only liberals. You are against us, so you are liberal. You victimize us.
How could you be so blind to evil that you would agree with those that unfairly attack and wage a propaganda war against the conservatives?
This is of course obviously true.
CAFTA?
Free trade? Ask the average person, "Is free trade a good thing?" They'll probably say yes. Then ask them, "What is free trade?" A few will probably know, but not many.
So let's name a bill that brings more state regulation as a "free trade" bill. When really the only was it's a free trade bill is because it deals with free trade...in an antithetical manner.
Then the editorials and columnists section can say, "In the debate of the new CAFTA bill we must remember the benefits of free trade. La de dah Wealth of Nations la la la comparative advantage. We should pass this free trade bill, CAFTA, because free trade is good for everyone."
As a side note(since this isn't really on topic anymore), the bill still faced quite a bit of opposition I see maybe people did see through this naming scheme, which I doubt. I guess many have grown disillusioned with "free trade," which I don't hold against them seeing as to what marches under the banner of it now.