I don't know if this has been discussed here yet, but I want to find out how people think of the EU.
Of course, on the one hand, it has to be diametrically opposed to the principles of libertarianism. It's big government, and huge bureaucracy.
On the other hand, people, goods, and capital are able to easily move around the entire union. Wasn't it true that before the EU, most the countries in Europe had some pretty high import/export regulations? Isn't the EU a good thing in this respect?
I suppose the real question of this post is this: If the goal of libertarianism is to decentralize as much as possible, how do you overcome the (very likely) possibility that other countries behave in incredibly protectionist ways, making trade highly difficult?
The EU is evil. It is a totally socialist organisation through and through. The whole EU project is almost identical to the document Europaische Wirtshaft Gemainschaft which was headed up by Dr Funk who was head of the Reichsbank in Nazi Germany. The alleged free movement of people and capital is firstly heavily regulated even within the union and the movement of labour amounts to forced integration to undermine individual cultures and customs to create a new European man. On forced intergartion see Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem.
If countries are protectionist they merely hurt themselves. Other countries who adopt unilateral free trade will do better and will further increase the pressure for free trade in those countries. You should never abandon your principles for some short term gain; for in the long term you shall surely lose.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
My name for it is EUSSR, and I am living in the middle of this cesspool.
In Gold We Trust
The aim is not so much decentralization as elimination of centralized power. While the EU appears to be an even bigger, more centralized power than the individual European states, it offers something of a competing jurisdiction, and has thus largely reduced the power of the member states.
Those who oppose it the loudest have been the nationalists, exactly the kind of people who would be most dangerous with centralized power. Overall the EU has contributed to a large-scale denationalization of Europe, while not being more socialist than the member states were before. That is why it has a reputation for being a liberal institution.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Every time when someone starts to speak of protectionism and the EU I can't help thinking of the common agricultural policy in the union. In my opinion this just might be the biggest steppingstone for the development of the third world countries. The CAP is probably the biggest example of how the edge of specialization gets ignored. Of course this is also bad for EU itself. Also EU is not the only protecting its agriculture and thinking that one has to be able to survive on its own. As long as this doesn't change there can be no free society. The fear of something, no matter it is, can't be the reason for not trying for a better solution. If we started to consentrate on fears and risks we'd all end up living in caves protecting ourselves with sticks and stones. Or as said years ago: "To present the most arguments against the free market is the lack of belief in freedom itself."
Stranger:The aim is not so much decentralization as elimination of centralized power. While the EU appears to be an even bigger, more centralized power than the individual European states, it offers something of a competing jurisdiction, and has thus largely reduced the power of the member states.
Although the EU has been denationalizing Europe it might very well be walking towards somekind of a new european man, as mentioned above. It seems that EU is constantly trying to become a country itself and this new man would be very useful in this case, even required. The new reform act again is taking power from member states but this also means that it is putting it in the hands of the union. Some time ago when I wasn't a libertarian and familiar with austrian economics (no wonder since one doesn't get to hear about them in public schools) I also believed that one centralized government is the best way to go. One 'good emperor' would be the cheapest way to run mankind. But as we know one of the worst things about a state is bureaucracy, which is self-expanding and thrives on the size of the state. And this is why EU has started to scare me.
For a while a also used to think that in order to get to a free society it might be a could idea to create one big state first and then abolish it. But this clearly is absurd since it would require enourmous violations of individual freedom and as a libertarian I can't say that 'the end justfies the means'.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
I like the idea of the EU being a large free trade zone with unrestricted movement of labour and capital. But in practice, most member countries regulate and restrict both of these. Pretty much everything the EU gets up to I am against. I would like the whole EU to be scrapped and started again purely as a free trade zone.
Fried Egg:labour and capital. But in practice, most member countries regulate and restrict both of these.
Let's see what happens when the time for keeping old restrictions (in order to 'protect' themselves from the new members) gets over, it should happen in a few years time. What I'm worried about is that when the market should get more free and therefore more prosperous, the politicians in Brussels would most probably hail it as their big effort. There would very likely be an interpretation that would say that without the good job and cooperation done by the governments there couldn't be such success. The brainwash must continue!
Fried Egg: I like the idea of the EU being a large free trade zone with unrestricted movement of labour and capital.
I like the idea of the EU being a large free trade zone with unrestricted movement of labour and capital.
For that purpose, no EU would have been necessary. You could simply construct a group of states who'd agree to abolish tariffs and capital restrictions for their subjects.Just let them do
The EUSSR is the most regulated economic zone in the world, I see it invade my life further from day to day. On December 13, the individual nations have ceased to exist, thanks to the new EU treaties which have been slipped under with almost no-one noticing their destructive impact. The days of a German constitution are history. What we have now is a set of treaties which have never been published or set to open discussion. A few thousand pages full of tripe and red tape, which have te effect of an "Enabling Act" for a hog-wild administration out of any control.
The decisions are being made by the EU commission, a group of Wesley Mouches (or worse), appointed by governments and not responsible to any authority. They can create laws, directives and executive orders at whim.
The EU parliament is a sick joke, it has no legislative power at all, never had.
THe EU constitution has been rejected in polls in Netherlands and France and ought to be dead as a doornail. Instead it was converted into a set of treaties which need only rattification by governments, not by anyone else.
It is like cancer, growing more and more aggressively and it is going to kill Europe soon.
Don Roberto: What I'm worried about is that when the market should get more free and therefore more prosperous,
What I'm worried about is that when the market should get more free and therefore more prosperous,
Ain't gonna happen. Neither.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/900
A good book on the EU.
Here's an article on its extensive regulation:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,519165,00.html
The EU is a good idea gone bad. Spectaculary bad.
The original idea was to have a free market area between the various members. Free circulation of persons and goods: could it get any better?
Instead we had a colossal behemoth, mimicking the worst out of every single member state, a colossal nose-picking bureaucracy which piles over the existing national ones. No matter is too small for the EU bureaucrat to start writing: take bananas for example. While pretty much everyone would agree over sanitary checks, but the EU went a step further and prescibed minimun and maximum size, curve ratio etc. OK, in reality is just another way to force imports of Cavendish type bananas from selected countries like Ecuador and ban them from other countries like Malaya but it's a good example.
People are growing so tired and nauseated by the EU. Problem is we have no idea how to fight back: the Americans have their Constitution and Ron Paul, what we have here? We occasionally get a strong, decent personality like Pim Fortuyin but most of the time the opposition is in the hands of small time opposition leaders, who may well be well-meaning but lack the intellectual and economic means to fight back. Jorg Haider was one such personality.
Fortuyin was by far the most dangerous: well-read, serious and honest. He got murdered because he was too dangerous. Haider was basically a beer-hall, local politician with some right ideas but was easy meat for the all-powerful European press. He learnt his lesson and went back to be a small politician with some good ideas.
We don't know how to fight back because we have been goaded into submission by a century and a half of public schooling, conscription and unmitigated propaganda. Our constitutions were not written to limit the Government's power but to fossilize the shape of each national State for the centuries to come.
Our only hope is that our "dear leaders" will spend themselves into oblivion...
Kakugo:The EU is a good idea gone bad. Spectaculary bad. The original idea was to have a free market area between the various members. Free circulation of persons and goods: could it get any better?
It was never meant to be a real free trade zone. Its earliest predecessor, the Montanunion, was meant as a heavily subsidized plan to regain war strength for the central European steel and coal industry, as the cold war was believed (or hoped) to turn into a hot war against the CCCP any time.
German and French politicians then always admitted that they were intending to bring the entire continent under the rule of one state. Especially French politicos could be quite elaborate on this topic, after losing three wars with Germany.
The Free Trade thing was a red herring, a public relation gag in order to keep he sheeple happy.
But the EU has reduced the power of the member states by accruing power to itself. This hardly qualifies as elimination of centralized power - it just moves it up a level of hierarchy and aggregates it there.
One of the fundamental properties of libertarian political organization is subsidiarity - the EU is precisely the opposite of that. Thus, in my view, it is a distinct move away from libertarian principles.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
No offense, but I think this is a very naive view. Just because the bureaucrats *said* they wanted a free market doesn't mean that's what they wanted anymore than American Republicans *want* free trade and therefore support NAFTA. In both cases, what they were after was government management of trade - calling it 'free' doesn't make it free.
And the proof of this is by looking at *actions* and *outcomes* - rather than by assuming politician's promises were actually true and binding. As you note, it turned into a behemoth - my assertion is that this is what was always intended, and the 'original idea' you cite was merely the window dressing they used to sell it.
I can't help but wonder if the liberalization of trade in the EU will make up for the extra government. Of course, it didn't need another layer of government just to free up trade, but it seems like the only political way to fix one government program (barriers to trade) is with more, larger programs (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc).
ozzy43:But the EU has reduced the power of the member states by accruing power to itself. This hardly qualifies as elimination of centralized power - it just moves it up a level of hierarchy and aggregates it there.One of the fundamental properties of libertarian political organization is subsidiarity - the EU is precisely the opposite of that. Thus, in my view, it is a distinct move away from libertarian principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity Subsidiarity was established in EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht, signed on 7 February 1992 and entered into force on 1 November 1993. The present formulation is contained in Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated version following the Treaty of Nice, which entered into force on 1 February 2003): The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein. In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community. Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty. A more descriptive analysis of the principle can be found in Protocol 30 to the EC Treaty. Article 9 of the proposed European constitution states Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level. Formally, the principle of subsidiarity applies to those areas where the Community does not have exclusive competence, the principle delineating those areas where the Community should and should not act. In practice, the concept is frequently used in a more informal manner in discussions as to which competences should be given to the Community, and which retained for the Member States alone. The concept of subsidiarity therefore has both a legal and a political dimension. Consequently, there are varying views as to its legal and political consequences, and various criteria are put forward explaining the content of the principle. For example: The action must be necessary because actions of individuals or member-state governments alone will not achieve the objectives of the action (the sufficiency criterion)The action must bring added value over and above what could be achieved by individual or member-state government action alone (the benefit criterion).Decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen (the close to the citizen criterion)The action should secure greater freedoms for the individual (the autonomy criterion). The European Union, however, has as part of its phraseology a call for "an ever-closer union." What restraints upon the progress of centralised decision making would be brought about by strict reference to the principle of subsidiarity have yet to be proven by major constitutional clashes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
Subsidiarity was established in EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht, signed on 7 February 1992 and entered into force on 1 November 1993. The present formulation is contained in Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (consolidated version following the Treaty of Nice, which entered into force on 1 February 2003):
A more descriptive analysis of the principle can be found in Protocol 30 to the EC Treaty.
Article 9 of the proposed European constitution states
Formally, the principle of subsidiarity applies to those areas where the Community does not have exclusive competence, the principle delineating those areas where the Community should and should not act. In practice, the concept is frequently used in a more informal manner in discussions as to which competences should be given to the Community, and which retained for the Member States alone.
The concept of subsidiarity therefore has both a legal and a political dimension. Consequently, there are varying views as to its legal and political consequences, and various criteria are put forward explaining the content of the principle. For example:
The European Union, however, has as part of its phraseology a call for "an ever-closer union." What restraints upon the progress of centralised decision making would be brought about by strict reference to the principle of subsidiarity have yet to be proven by major constitutional clashes.
Subsidiarity is garbage. I'm more worried about my neighbor having power over me instead of some far-off bureaucrat who doesn't know I exist.
Grant:it didn't need another layer of government just to free up trade
I suppose my view is that another layer of government never frees up trade. While this may appear to be the case on the surface, it just means more control - if and when they decide to exercise it. Make no mistake - government = coercion, even if it chooses for a while to pretend non-coercion. The levers are there, just hidden for now.
Stranger:Subsidiarity is garbage. I'm more worried about my neighbor having power over me instead of some far-off bureaucrat who doesn't know I exist.
Interesting that you quote the definition of subsidiarity as espoused by the EU. You don't seem aware that govts play word games. They do. Think: free trade = NAFTA.
While we're at it, why don't we just buy into these gems:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Are you seriously thinking that the bureaucrats in Brussels feel bound by the principles of subsidiarity to keep their hands out of ANY pies that would be more effectively administered locally??? If so, I have some beachfront property here in Phoenix we need to discuss.
A more realistic definition is given by Wikipedia:
Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
I gotta say - if you are more afraid of your neighbor than of agents of the State, I don't know what you are doing here. You got it exactly backwards in my view. I suggest you pick up a copy of Vin Suprynowicz' The Ballad of Carl Drega to see what 'far-off bureaucrats' are capable of.
Physiocrat: The EU is evil. It is a totally socialist organisation through and through. The whole EU project is almost identical to the document Europaische Wirtshaft Gemainschaft which was headed up by Dr Funk who was head of the Reichsbank in Nazi Germany. The alleged free movement of people and capital is firstly heavily regulated even within the union and the movement of labour amounts to forced integration to undermine individual cultures and customs to create a new European man. On forced intergartion see Hoppe's Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem. If countries are protectionist they merely hurt themselves. Other countries who adopt unilateral free trade will do better and will further increase the pressure for free trade in those countries. You should never abandon your principles for some short term gain; for in the long term you shall surely lose.
I tend to agree with you.
The bigger the country the more bigger the state.
Time will tell
Grant:I can't help but wonder if the liberalization of trade in the EU will make up for the extra government. Of course, it didn't need another layer of government just to free up trade, but it seems like the only political way to fix one government program (barriers to trade) is with more, larger programs (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc).
They could also do the completely unheard of thing and repeal the current laws and tariffs that get in the way of free trade...
Like NAFTA, the US, Canada and Mexico could have just agreed to open the borders over coffee instead of making some big new treaty that may of may not accomplish this goal. Hell, the US could just pull off all the border guards and create a de facto free trade zone within N. America.
From what I can tell the Mexicans don't really care what you bring into their country as long as it's not a gun or car intended for a permanent stay and the US/Canada border is so full of holes the checkpoints are just a formality.
To change the subject a bit, I just wonder how long before the EU claims 'ownership' of the member states so any attempt to secede will result in a Civil War. Seems to be inevitable, the slow transfer from the European Union to the European Union.
ozzy43:I gotta say - if you are more afraid of your neighbor than of agents of the State, I don't know what you are doing here. You got it exactly backwards in my view. I suggest you pick up a copy of Vin Suprynowicz' The Ballad of Carl Drega to see what 'far-off bureaucrats' are capable of.
I am afraid if my neighbor is an agent of the state, which is what subsidiarity implies.
The UKIP has some nice videos on the EU and its democratic ways:
The clip the EU doesn't want you to see
Reach out and touch
Stranger:I am afraid if my neighbor is an agent of the state, which is what subsidiarity implies.
We're using the same term and defining it differently. Subsidiarity as I am using it - as the definition I posted makes clear - is all about decentralizing power from a higher level to a lower level. So, IFF you think 'govt should do X' - then subsidiarity says your next question should be: 'what is the most local level of govt that can do X effectively and efficiently?
It has nothing to do with your neighbor being an agent of the State.
Anonymous Coward:Like NAFTA, the US, Canada and Mexico could have just agreed to open the borders over coffee instead of making some big new treaty that may of may not accomplish this goal. Hell, the US could just pull off all the border guards and create a de facto free trade zone within N. America.
Precisely correct AC - any time the government puts out a press release saying that govt officials signed some sort of treaty to allow 'free' something or other, you can bet your last dollar that 'freedom' had nothing to do with it.
Anonymous Coward:To change the subject a bit, I just wonder how long before the EU claims 'ownership' of the member states so any attempt to secede will result in a Civil War. Seems to be inevitable, the slow transfer from the European Union to the European Union.
Terrific and thought provoking question - with any luck, we'll see it answered in the next decade or two...
sam72: On the other hand, people, goods, and capital are able to easily move around the entire union.
On the other hand, people, goods, and capital are able to easily move around the entire union.
hmmm, i think you'll find it's a lot less than this in practice. think of the campaign the french mounted to defend themselves from that evil bogeyman - the polish plumber (and the polish counteroffensive). professions, trades etc are still subject to local rules, stifling cross-border competition. look at the nationalism in the electricity sector, or virtually any "core" industry, and it's clear the integration is much less than was hoped for. likewise, writing a cheque in euros on an italian bank and presenting it in france incurs high transaction costs (comparable to pre-union rates).
talk about "big brother" - in the case of italy, brussels was issuing edicts that threatened the wood-fired neapolitan pizza (health ruling about oven temperature), "colonnata" lard (a regional delicacy where lard is cured in marble - brussels knows better than centuries of gourmands), and wooden cutting blocks. this is just the tip of a very big iceberg.
on the positive side, brussels has earned a deservedly bad name for itself, and will be blamed by wily nationalist politicians for any imaginable problem.
anyway, how can any monetary union function when the constituent countries have vastly different economic structures? germans still have a soft spot for a hard currency, when the italians have always gone for the quick-fix of devaluation. look at the flack the ecb has been copping from sarkozy.
i think the union was flawed in conception, always destined for failure,and has its real baptism of fire ahead of it - major economic crisis. the eu's enemies are already thick on the ground.
sad to say, there is no plan b, which means the eventual collapse will be untidy in the extreme.
If I remember correctly Iceland, Greenland and Norway left the EEC, back in the days when it was called this way, over fishing quotas disputes.
In recent year only very few people talked about leaving the EU: it has become such a sacred cow that nobody can talk ill of it. Some people even believe that the EU is only hope against the "evil" national and local governments, not understanding that they are one and the same thing.
I am personally curious to see how the Belgian crisis will end. For years the EU as adopted a strict two-way policy over secession. If the country doesn't belong to the EU "secession is a right as recognized by the Helsinki Treaty", if the country belongs to the EU separatists are to be treated as "lone nuts", "ignorant of our rich heritage" or even worse. Take Kosovo for example: the EU (backed by the US, of course) is strongly supporting the Albanian separatists. Billions of Euros are ready to "help jumpstart the economy" and NATO troops are already in place, ready to defend the new country. Now take Brittany, Corsica, Lombardy or Euskadi: the separatists there are demonized by the mainstream press even if, like the Lombards, have always been very peaceful and law abiding to the extreme or if, like the Bretons, have abandoned their armed struggle many years ago. The EU and the national governments need each other to survive and freedom (in any form) is their poison.
It should be noted that the proposed Constitution made provisions for countries who want to 'exit' the EU. Whether the EU will stand for it is another matter entirely, but something to remember is that as an institution it is still pretty much toothless, in spite of its heavy meddling in national affairs.
"...how do you overcome the (very likely) possibility that other countries behave in incredibly protectionist ways, making trade highly difficult?"
Let's take a simple example. Bill, Lucy, John, and Wendy all have fruit to trade with each other. Bill, Lucy and John are very friendly to trade with, and have basically no conditions on trading with one another. Wendy, however, will only trade with you if you buy X amount of fruit from her in return, and you must pay a premium price for her fruit and fill out a form before you trade with her. Bill, Lucy and John will therefore not trade with Wendy, or if Wendy has some unique fruit that none of them are able to obtain they may trade with her "on occasion", but limit it to only special occasions. Wendy will then not receive as much trade as she would if she reduced her restrictions, correct? And this, of course, would affect the amount of profit she could receive.
Your basic mistake is to think that the EU has anything to do with free trade - to the contrary, it's all about CONTROL.
A minor mistake is to try to associate politics with reason.
Not me. I can shoot my neighbor.
DBratton: Stranger:Subsidiarity is garbage. I'm more worried about my neighbor having power over me instead of some far-off bureaucrat who doesn't know I exist. Not me. I can shoot my neighbor.
Unless the collective decides to take your guns away.
I've seen what happens to people who shoot cops.
Stranger: DBratton: Stranger:Subsidiarity is garbage. I'm more worried about my neighbor having power over me instead of some far-off bureaucrat who doesn't know I exist. Not me. I can shoot my neighbor. I've seen what happens to people who shoot cops.
OK, so the logic you seem to be working with there is: subsidiarity, under your definition, means all your neighbors have power over you - AND now also, all your neighbors are cops, and all their neighbors are cops, too, presumably. In other words, everyone is a cop. This scenario has zero to do with the concept of subsidiarity (by the standard definition), and I really have no idea where you are coming up with what seems to be a fantasy.
So we are to believe that it's preferrable to have a gargantuan, unaccountable monolithic State which, through its multitudinous agents at EU/nation/state/city level, asserts control over its citizens' actions (and thoughts were possible), while permitting them a few so-called 'freedoms', than to have power devolved to the individuals comprising society. So let me ask you once again: what are you doing posting on these forums, where the prevalent view is precisely the opposite?
Stranger:I've seen what happens to people who shoot cops.
So have I - and that's one of the best reasons I can think of to divest power from the State and back to the people. Do you think it's just happenstance that shooting a cop leads to intense media attention and the dedication of a massive amount of State resources to tracking down the killer(s) while the shooting of just some plain old unimportant citizen is lucky to get reported on page B18?