Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Oh no, you found me out. I only care about myself. I don't owe anything to anybody ... These kinds of hollow personal attacks is supposed to intimidate one into giving up their freedom? Let me ask you this, are we free people or are we slaves?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Forbes
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
Just one of many links.

Apparently there were others who did not share your point of view.
This is no different from the fact that there are more than enough Reps today who do not share my point of view.

I make a post asking if we are free or a slave and you reply with a link that does not work to a Congressional Act in 1798? What is the connection?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I make a post asking if we are free or a slave and you reply with a link that does not work to a Congressional Act in 1798? What is the connection?

We are slaves to our state representatives.
And mandates, which deprive us of our liberty, are nothing new.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

We are slaves to our state representatives.

I disagree that the agent is greater than the principle.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

And mandates, which deprive us of our liberty, are nothing new.

So freedom is irrevocably lost in precedence, to your way of thinking?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I disagree that the agent is greater than the principle.




So freedom is irrevocably lost in precedence, to your way of thinking?

The only way to acheive the freedom you so desire is to shape your state assembly.
If you can achieve this, power to you.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The only way to acheive the freedom you so desire is to shape your state assembly.
If you can achieve this, power to you.

Actually that won't do a thing. Since the federal government has decreed the states must either submit to the will of the federal government, or die.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Actually that won't do a thing. Since the federal government has decreed the states must either submit to the will of the federal government, or die.

Maybe we can do something when Lincoln isn't looking.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Forbes
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798
Just one of many links.

Apparently there were others who did not share your point of view.
This is no different from the fact that there are more than enough Reps today who do not share my point of view.

The problem with your assertion is this was for Seamen only. Navy personnel not every citizen. Note also that at that time there was no Veterans Administration to help out the military either.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

The problem with your assertion is this was for Seamen only. Navy personnel not every citizen. Note also that at that time there was no Veterans Administration to help out the military either.

It wasn't for navy personnel, it was for privately employed merchant seamen, a 1% payroll tax that had to be paid before a ship could leave the harbor, for the relief of sick and disabled seamen, and to build the Marine Hospitals which were to serve merchant seamen.
Earlier in 1790, they had passed a bill that required employers (shipowners) to pay into a relief fund for sick and disabled seamen, an employer mandate.
So back when the Congress contained 20 signers of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson was president of the Senate, they had no problem with the constitutionality of tax supported healthcare.

Originally Posted by goober

It wasn't for navy personnel, it was for privately employed merchant seamen, a 1% payroll tax that had to be paid before a ship could leave the harbor, for the relief of sick and disabled seamen, and to build the Marine Hospitals which were to serve merchant seamen.
Earlier in 1790, they had passed a bill that required employers (shipowners) to pay into a relief fund for sick and disabled seamen, an employer mandate.
So back when the Congress contained 20 signers of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson was president of the Senate, they had no problem with the constitutionality of tax supported healthcare.

It would be great if people would actually read an article prior to posting.

Originally Posted by goober

It wasn't for navy personnel, it was for privately employed merchant seamen ... they had no problem with the constitutionality of tax supported healthcare.

You know the Left is losing the argument when they resort to lies. There is no comparison between what the FF pushed then to Obamacare. First, Obamacare is not a tax. Second, the FF limited the excise tax to those employed in international trade, consistent with Article I, Section 8, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." The law read in relevant part: That from and after the first day of September next, the master or ownerof every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port ...

Originally Posted by goober

It wasn't for navy personnel, it was for privately employed merchant seamen, a 1% payroll tax that had to be paid before a ship could leave the harbor, for the relief of sick and disabled seamen, and to build the Marine Hospitals which were to serve merchant seamen.
Earlier in 1790, they had passed a bill that required employers (shipowners) to pay into a relief fund for sick and disabled seamen, an employer mandate.
So back when the Congress contained 20 signers of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson was president of the Senate, they had no problem with the constitutionality of tax supported healthcare.

I missed the last sentence.
I believe the insurance was paid for by the sailors.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You know the Left is losing the argument when they resort to lies. There is no comparison between what the FF pushed then to Obamacare. First, Obamacare is not a tax. Second, the FF limited the excise tax to those employed in international trade, consistent with Article I, Section 8, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." The law read in relevant part: That from and after the first day of September next, the master or ownerof every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port ...

LOL, so you're saying the constitution does not allow regulating commerce between the states, or are you just being silly?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Sigh, you'll never get it.

Correction - YOU will never get it.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Lots, how many slaves escaped under the careful eyes of their slave owners throughout history? Lots.


Oh look, it's a wikipedia sighting. Should I go edit it to say "machinehead is an idiot?"

Look in the mirror and see the true "idiot" sport.

Only an idiot would claim that the Irish "slaves" escaped.

In fact, landlords paid for the ship passage of their "slaves" - the "landlord property" - to emmigrate to Canada and the U.S....

Coffin ships: the immigration ships that sailed to Grosse Isle, Canada's immigration point.

In 1846, the potato crop was completely ruined and it was clear that the Government needed to act. Rather than provide food aid, Parliament introduced new taxes (which landowners would have to pay) to raise money for 'public works relief'. The latter was a two-pronged scheme. It created work for labourers so that they earn enough to feed their families with food other than potatoes. And it provided for workhouses to be built to house the absolutely destitute.

The gentry were more than a little alarmed since they could see this taxation level, which they considered onerous, continuing for years. Some decided to bring a conclusion to their local problems by removing the burden altogether: by shipping their tenants to North America. They calculated that the cost of transporting each individual was considerably less than supporting that person in the workhouse for a year.

And so the first ships were commissioned and set sail, loaded with human cargo, for British North America (Canada). Many of these vessels were overloaded. Each held an average of 300 persons, some two or three times the number that would have been allowed by a port in the USA, and some were not seaworthy.

The ships that survived the Atlantic crossing arrived at the quarantine station of Grosse Isle, the Canadian immigration point and depot set up in the Gulf of St Lawrence (Ontario) in 1832, to contain diseased immigrants to British North America. Statistics for just one month - July 1847 - indicate the horrors that were being indured. Ten vessels arrived that month; of the 4,427 Irish immigrants that had started their journeys (all had departed from either Cork or Liverpool), 804 had died on the passage while 847 were sick on arrival.

By the end of 1847, the awful toll could be calculated from the 200 immigrations ships that had made the crossing. Of 98,105 passengers (of whom 60,000 were Irish), 5293 died at sea, 8072 died at Grosse Isle and Quebec, 7,000 in and above Montreal. In total, then, at least 20,365 people perished (the numbers of those that died further along in their journey from illnesses contracted on the coffin ships cannot be ascertained) – one-third of each vessel's passenger list.


Montreal's mass graves

The quarantine station at Grosse Isle, Newfoundland, Canada, was soon overwhelmed with the numbers of sick passengers crawling or carried off the coffin ships. It couldn't treat those that were ill, let alone provide for those that were not. So those that appeared healthy remained onboard their immigration ships and were simply waved on to Montreal. Unfortunately, many had already caught typhus – the fever that ran rampant on their overcrowded and dirty vessels – and they were to become ill further upriver. Soon, it was Montreal that was overwhelmed with the dead and dying.

Ten years after the year of the coffin ships, workers building the city's Victoria Bridge unearthed a mass grave containing the remains of about 6000 Irish immigrants. A 27-tonne granite boulder marks the spot beside the bridge's entrance where an annual ceremony remembers those who died escaping poverty and hunger.

Only an idiot who never studied the Irish famine would make that stupid claim.

But I never accused 9aces of being the shapest knife in the drawer.

Originally Posted by 9aces

You said it, and you don't get it. Used GOVERNMENT to force their will. Which I why I've said time and again, you just don't understand freedom at all. Using GOVERNMENT to get what you want, is the system you worship that can do no wrong. Never mind that you posted links up you thought defended your position, and just pointed out where GOVERNMENT was the tool of oppression and murder. I don't endorse the use of force against anyone, especially me.

AND IF GOVERNMENT DID NOT EXIST THE SITUATION WOULD BE SOMALIA.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Too bad about my neighbor, if they are unwilling to care for themselves. I'm under no obligation to do it for them if they refuse to do so.

And this is exactly what your selfish mentality produced....

"Routh blamed the landlords. The proprietors of the Skibereen district, he told Trevelyan, "draw an annual income of 50,000 pounds." There were twelve landowners, of whom the largest was Lord Carbery, who Routh declared, drew 15,000 pounds in rent; next was Sir William Wrixon-Becher, on whose estate the town of Skibereen stood; Sir William, alleged Routh, drew 10,000 pounds, while the Reverand Stephen Townsend, a Protestant clergyman, drew 8,000 pounds. "Ought such destitution to prevail with such resources?"

Cecil Woodham-Smith
The Great Hunger, 1962
p.158-159

Originally Posted by 9aces

If you give it a vehicle like a government to wield that power, yes. Some will seek to form one in order to wield power. So?

And as I have stated - without government you get places like SOMALIA - which is where you need to go. I don't see you leaving this "totalitarian nightmare" to go live in your anarchist Somalia - do I ?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Self-interest is not greed however. You're so afraid of other people however, it's not surprising you don't see the distinction.

I'm afraid of slefish individuals like YOU. Absolutely. Without a government to enforce laws, your ilk would be the very first to take your own law and kill anyone who "violated" your version of property rights.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Kinda collaborates exactly what I said doesn't it?

Nooooo, if the selfish - blood sucking landlords had not raped their tennants for every last possible cent in true free market greed, the peasants could have had kept enough grain to replace the lost potato crop.

Bu the landlords simply followed - NOT FORCED BY GOVERNMENT - followed your selfish creed.

Originally Posted by 9aces

You're afraid man cannot rule himself. I don't seem to remember ever saying it would be easy, quick, or bloodless.

Man must learn how, and he cannot learn this lesson while being ruled by the most corrupt. That governments are ruled by corruption is a fact no sane person can dispute.

Man will never elevate himself above theat of an animal if man follows your lack of social values. That governments are composed of a mixture of people that come from the same society that have placed them in power in our Republic is a given.

Just because some of those have your corrupt value system and do their best to corrupt government is also a given.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Being self-interested does not mean you only care about yourself. If you've been listening, you'd know this.

You have given no indication that you care about anything else.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Government has values?

If people like you occupy government ? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by 9aces

In order to rule them. Some people, like you are so afraid of life you want to be ruled, so you'll feel safe from the rest of humanity.

I'm absolutely of corrupt people like yourself - I love life. Not afraid of it like you are.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Why create a government?

Go live in Somalia and see how long your freedom lasts.

Steve