Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Of course I do; where do YOU set limits?

The limits I draw are the same limits of the limit to ones rights (only manifestation is property rights).

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Where do we distinguish between being part of a community and being a bunch of individuals free to do what we want regardless of the risks to society?

I deny the existence of a "society" but a collection of individuals. Hence my focus on individual rights in comparison to collectivism.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

but we shouldn't have a fire department, road, bridge and tunnel repair?

Having these things is not the question. Who pays for it is the question.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

We should allow construction without standards (electric, plumbing, gas, distance from neighboring structures, etc)?

Perhaps you are unaware of the arrogance of your question; that you automatically put yourself in a position to not allow freedom. There are simple and cost effective solutions to deal with such matters, e.g., a good house keeping seal and the proper role of insurance. In other words, a person can engage in a private contract to build something but if you want insurance it may have to meet criteria set by self-governing insurance firms.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

For the first hundred years of its existence the federal government was supported through tariffs. Tariffs are, or at least were, the American way; it is what made America great.

Tariffs aren't what made America great, but they can be a reasonable source of revenue. Pure libertarian philosophy says they're bad, but in the context of current realities, I'm pro-tariff. They should, however, be phased in rather than slapped on in some knee-jerk, protectionist action.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

Yes Ace, the freedom of those who act without a sense of moral responsibility scares me.

It's not the freedom, but the lack of moral responsibility that is scary. That lack becomes even more scary with less freedom, as that combination is the root of the worst horrors of the 20th century, and probably many more to come...

Originally Posted by USCitizen

That' a pretty broad stroke.
You want to eliminate our military?
You want to give up police protection?
Freedom vs no freedom?

As you say, that's a pretty broad stroke. In an ideal world, everyone would follow libertarian precepts and yes, we could get rid of our military and police. But then that would probably be true if one could get everyone to follow any -ism of your choice. But living in the real world, police and military and unfortunately necessities; just because they are necessary doesn't mean they chould infringe upon one's freedoms any more than is necessary, though.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

I get the feeling that there are a lot of libertarians out there that think that America should not have laws governing:

• Child labor - should be reduced
• Environmental protection - should be reduced, possibly replaced by torts
• Antitrust - should be reduced, possibly replaced by torts
• Product safety - should be replaced by certifications and torts
• Occupational safety and health - should be replaced by certifications and torts
• Equal opportunity - should be abolished
• Collective bargaining - should be abolished
• Intellectual property - generally support
• Minimum wage - should be abolished

Originally Posted by teaser47401

As a practical matter, I see no way to balance the budget without taxing imports. The rich don’t have the money, the middle class is shrinking, and even Reagan could not reduce governmental spending on social programs to a sustainable level.

As a practical matter, the only true requirement is cutting entitlements. We can do it, or the Chinese can do it for us. That doesn't mean other things should not be cut or that tariffs are off limits, just that tariffs (done properly) are only a good idea, not a requirement.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

If you see some other way out, I’d love to hear it, but barring that can we not look at amending our free trade policies and quit making pariahs of politicians who dare to suggest it.

Since there's no one silver bullet, there are a Lot of other ways out. The biggest financial issue and the biggest 'inappropriate pariah' issue is entitlement cuts and that should be first in both priority and chronology. After that, it sounds like we at least vaguely agree on tariffs.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Ask a Libertatian or Conservative for explicit examples of where authority overrides freedom and you'll get silence.
I wonder how many of them making 35K a year could afford privatived garbage pickup?

If one's going so hard-core libertarian as to require privatized garbage pick-up, that would imply one also allows private disposal - Pool together with the neighbors as necessary to negotiate a better rate on conventional pick-up, have a private or neighborhood composting system, have a private or neighborhood burn pile. Or worst case, allow the free market of real estate to work and move someplace that has a workable disposal system of whatever type.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well let's start with the speed limit, we can move on from there to carrying whatever personal weapons we choose, building permits, zoning laws. Want some more?

Speed limits are currently set by politics and/or finances, not by safety, so they need to be at least revamped if not removed. Building permits and zoning laws also need to be severely curtailed from their current intrusiveness.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Your freedom to do what you want ends where it infringes on another freedom. In the case of housing codes. If it has been determined that poor quality construction results in actual risk to others besides yourself then a code that you must abide by is reasonable.

Exactly, but that covers probably 20% of the building code. The remainder is 'good ideas' and/or 'nice to haves' that some have decided the rest of will do at the point of a gun.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Again and again and again I point out True Conservatives do not have a problem with laws and regulations. They have a problem with the FEDERAL not the STATE level implementation of those laws and regulations that are not supported by the Constitution for the Federal to create.

That's a separate issue. There are a lot of government undertakings that should not exist because they are inappropriate intrusions upon freedom and/or privacy. Then there are others (mostly a subset of the previous) that should not exist because they are illegal activities according to the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian
I love my country, I fear my government

Conservative and Libertarian are in some instances mutually exclusive. And depending on one's interpretation, Patriot may be mutually exlusive with one or both as well.
Hard to disagree with the second part, though...

[QUOTE=JohnLocke;2047935]The limits I draw are the same limits of the limit to ones rights (only manifestation is property rights).

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Where do we distinguish between being part of a community and being a bunch of individuals free to do what we want regardless of the risks to society?

I deny the existence of a "society" but a collection of individuals. Hence my focus on individual rights in comparison to collectivism.



Having these things is not the question. Who pays for it is the question.



Perhaps you are unaware of the arrogance of your question; that you automatically put yourself in a position to not allow freedom. There are simple and cost effective solutions to deal with such matters, e.g., a good house keeping seal and the proper role of insurance. In other words, a person can engage in a private contract to build something but if you want insurance it may have to meet criteria set by self-governing insurance firms.

The essence of your platform is the ever failing faith in self-governance.
If only the solution to all transactions were that simple.
We have volumes of laws because self-governance has failed innumerable times.
THAT'S reality.

In fact, if SG worked, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The difference is that I see that most codes and regulations make sense whist you insist on non-infringement of your civil or uncivil liberties.
You just stated that NOTHING overrides your civil liberties.

The only thing that does is why my liberty infringes on another's. Nothing else does.

[QUOTE=USCitizen;2047950]

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The limits I draw are the same limits of the limit to ones rights (only manifestation is property rights).



The essence of your platform is the ever failing faith in self-governance.
If only the solution to all transactions were that simple.
We have volumes of laws because self-governance has failed innumerable times.
THAT'S reality.

In fact, if SG worked, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

It really is that simple, which is why so many have a problem with it. It's too straightforward and those who seek advantage over others can't find it thus can't accept it.

I'm sure you have some examples of where self-governance fails since you seem to think there's volumes written about it.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

50 FDAs? 50 EPAs? 50 Departments of Aviation?
Whew! What a mess that would be.

Why not just 50 nation states, disband congress and all states join the UN?
No states would be able to subsidize corps, wall street would collapse and we would be forced to actually be productive again.

You may be partially convincing me that Lincoln's union resulted in a global monster.

Translation -- You cannot produce a real conservative that fits what you claim.

Why not we have 50 state capitals, 50 this 50 of that. I see no problem with it.


As for Lincoln, he is another case of duality of the past leaders. He stands next to Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers in that respect. On one hand he did some great things, on the other his means were not necessarily the right ones.

[QUOTE=9aces;2047961]

Originally Posted by USCitizen

It really is that simple, which is why so many have a problem with it. It's too straightforward and those who seek advantage over others can't find it thus can't accept it.

I'm sure you have some examples of where self-governance fails since you seem to think there's volumes written about it.

You have never been in a lawyer's office?
You've never seen the tombs of case law aligning their walls?

Originally Posted by 9aces

The only thing that does is why my liberty infringes on another's. Nothing else does.

If someone built a recycling plant next to your property it wouldn't bother you?

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Translation -- You cannot produce a real conservative that fits what you claim.

Why not we have 50 state capitals, 50 this 50 of that. I see no problem with it.


As for Lincoln, he is another case of duality of the past leaders. He stands next to Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers in that respect. On one hand he did some great things, on the other his means were not necessarily the right ones.

.

A serious question...
Do you pay attention to Talk Radio shows?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

.

A serious question...
Do you pay attention to Talk Radio shows?

See my Sig?

Andrew Wilkow is on Sirius. Mike Church as well. Otherwise, no, I don't listen to Hannity, Beck or Lush... err Rush.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

See my Sig?

Andrew Wilkow is on Sirius. Mike Church as well. Otherwise, no, I don't listen to Hannity, Beck or Lush... err Rush.

OK; he used to be on Sunday in the NYC/LI area until he moved to Sirius.
And yes, he is, or wa, far more grey in his thinking than the mentioned robots.

Maybe I have to subscribe to Sirius.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

The essence of your platform is the ever failing faith in self-governance.

Given that the alternative is slavery/tyranny, yup!

Originally Posted by USCitizen

If only the solution to all transactions were that simple.

They are simple just not easy. Quoted from Reagan. Funny that you could not actually present one single example of an overly complicated transaction.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

We have volumes of laws because self-governance has failed innumerable times.
THAT'S reality.

No. We have volumes of law because that is the nature of statists. What would a legislature do if they realized there was nothing left to make laws about. Don't you think after 2,000 years we should have just about covered all the things we need laws about? I mean enough is enough!

Originally Posted by USCitizen

In fact, if SG worked, we wouldn't need a Constitution.

The Constitution is THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF SELF GOVERNANCE. That is why WE, THE PEOPLE wrote it.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

If someone built a recycling plant next to your property it wouldn't bother you?

A great example of the feminization of society, making an Appeal to Emotion. Let's make laws and arrange our society - not based on fundamental timeless principles that stand the test of time and maximize the virtue of individuals - but based on how I personally feel about someone exercising their freedom.

It wouldn't bother you if ... a mother killed her unborn baby?
It wouldn't bother you if ... you were told you had to close your business because your building did not meeting their standards, e.g., codes, handicap allocation, etc?
It wouldn't bother you if ... a far away State said you did not have the right to alter or abolish your government?
It wouldn't bother you if ... you had to pay for others life styles and life style choices, e.g., health care, sex aids, welfare, etc?
It wouldn't bother you if ... the State made your grand children economic slaves?