An interesting response to my last entry from an anonymous source ...
I would be interested in what tariffs we have in the US that is preventing SA goods from being sold here. If it is in the textile industry, it only exits because our textile industry has been destroyed by foreign (mostly Asian) textiles and we are trying to create some industry in the US. When was the last time you bought any clothes that were made in the US? Look around SA and see if you can find anything actually made in the US. Right now our trade deficit is way out of balance in favor of foreign made goods so I think what they want the US to do is already happening. It is just benefiting China, Japan, Korea and other foreign countries not SA. What SA needs to do is attract the low wage manufacturing jobs that are going to China and Mexico to start their industrialization. With a rather stable country they might do that for export to neighboring African countries - although those countries may be able to undercut them in wages. I know that we subsidize our agriculture but do you really want the US to be importing all its food and besides the Europeans (especially the French) are much worse than we are. Anyway, the real point is we are not going to be able to buy stuff from other countries nor remain in the 1st World if we don't produce anything ourselves. By the way, it is the Democrats with their labor supporters who are most for tariffs. A Obama presidency is almost certain to lead to higher US tariffs.
As for respective Constitutions we will see if the SA constitution lasts 200 years, taking a seaboard nation of 2 million to a continental nation of 300 million with only 20 some changes and becomes the oldest continuous government in the world. Some of the human rights that their Constitution guarantees (water, and health care) are fundamentally different from the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Our rights protect us from the government. It indicates a fear that the government is the primary danger to our liberties and must be controlled and limited. It reflects that the government is a necessary evil. I personally believe that is true and that the government is the only real threat to our liberties. Water and health care are commodities. When the government guarantees the right to a commodity it reflects that the government is not a necessary evil but a positive good. Who is it that is going to guarantee these rights. It must be the government. It tells the people that they are not responsible for working to obtain these commodities the government is going to give it to them. How will the government pay for these things? It will have to tax the people who have the money to give it to those that don't. This is a redistribution of wealth. A redistribution that the government must do according to the constitution. What if the socialized health care is a debacle? How can the government change without violating the Constitution? The US Constitution does not require the government to provide commodities to everyone thus we are free through our laws to decide how the commodities should be handled. How can there ever be a free market in health care or water distribution in SA? With our rights protecting against the government we are free to battle over it. I probably said this confusingly but I hope it makes clear the difference between a right that protects you from government oppression and a right that promises you a commodity. And why the government's guarantee of a commodity is a big step to socialism and a real step towards dictatorship or even totalitarianism.