Joerg finds Biondi's concerns "truly fascinating as they reveal such different values". Perhaps as a long-time observer of the American political scene, I can help decode what some of those values might be.

Rick Biondi's article is a fairly typical example of a movement in American politics that might be called Libertarian-populism or paleo-Libertarianism. It certainly isn't a mainstream movement, but it has a long history and is nothing new or unusual. It shares my basic Libertarian philosophy, but it also makes certain judgments or analysis concerning recent history and current events with which Libertarian-pragmatists, such as myself, disagree. Movements like Biondi's can also be contrasted with what you might call neo-Libertarianism, or techno-Libertarianism.

For example, the idea of Atlantica. There is ample evidence that, historically, there have been various impulses and movements to create some sort of Atlantic union. These impulses and movements continue today, even here on this very blog! But it is hardly a sinister conspiracy, as is implied by the tone of Biondi's article.

Paleo-libertarians like Biondi will agree with generic statements that free trade is good, both morally and from a point of view of economic efficiency. Why then are they against Atlantica? As far as I can tell, there are two reasons. 1) They feel that today's free trade agreements are dishonest. They feel that these trade agreements are in fact attempts to create (or protect) cartels whose goal is to monopolize trade and inhibit competition, all under the banner of free trade. 2) They understand that historically, culture follows trade routes. But, instead of embracing this truth and hoping that the values, institutions, and culture of freedom will spread, along with goods and services, they instead react defensively. They feel that the concept of Atlantica is a threat to American sovereignty, by which they mean not just the physical borders but also the values and culture. Or, to put it another way: Biondi is a reminder that the anti-globalization movement has a great deal of appeal to anti-socialists; paradoxically, anti-globalization also has a great deal of appeal for many socialists. To me, this paradox shows that everybody has conservative tendencies, but some, who call themselves conservatives, or even, Conservatives, are comfortable acknowleding this, while others remain in various stages of denial.

In a perfect world, free trade would be accomplished by simply repealing any and all trade agreements, leaving everyone free to make trade anything with anyone, subject only to the laws protecting private property and contracts. But, we don't live in a perfect world. Laws regarding private property and contracts have evolved differently in different cultures, resulting in contradictions and gaps in the law. Also, it is important to acknowledge that monopolies and cartels exist, and have a certain political power that cannot be ignored. So, we must have trade agreements, and we must struggle to form practical judgments as to whether individual agreements (existing or proposed) leave us, on balance, more free or less free.