Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by teaser47401

So who pays for them?

Pay per fire?
That assume there is already a fire department with personnel available.
The Fire Department building in Franklin Square cost 2 million.
That did not include trucks, uniform, gas, required maintenance.
Privatizing fire management is a losing proposition and if the fire travels into the non-paying neighbors property?

[QUOTE=USCitizen;2047993]

Originally Posted by 9aces

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

One of my friends is a lawyer. Those are hardly failures of self-governance. More like the voracious appetite of those who seek control over others, and use the law as their weapon.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

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

Why would it? If something he's doing I have a problem with, we'll discuss it.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Why would it? If something he's doing I have a problem with, we'll discuss it.

Thanks for an honest answer; it's appreciated.

The other question that's been bothering me today is if even State Rights are too broad considering some states are very large and most cities within them have nothing in common except for the fact that they're in the same state.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

So who pays for them?

Whoever chooses to pay for them.

[QUOTE=9aces;2048074]

Originally Posted by USCitizen

One of my friends is a lawyer. Those are hardly failures of self-governance. More like the voracious appetite of those who seek control over others, and use the law as their weapon.

Unfortunatley, there seem to be enough of them to fill tombs.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is not about cheap but liberty. Why would anyone buy a product not made locally? One reason would be it is of a unique quality, e.g., tea grown on the Himalays. Other reason is that it offers a quantitative benefit, i.e., cheap. By allowing this option, we allow the free market to help developing countries. In my opinion, this is far preferable to giving them loans they have no means to repay and then "forgiving" the debt, i.e., transfer the debt to other people. Otherwise, we are dooming the 3rd world in joining the industrialized world any time soon.

I haven't jumped into this due to time restraints but this Libertarian view is in direct conflict with our U.S. Constitution and our own history as a developing nation.

I already discussed this history that is so inconvenient to the Libertarian and their censored view of economic history:

Free Trade and the Founding of the United States

"We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress: that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States."

"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents"
Samuel Bryan
December 18, 1787

David Syme, another prominent English free trader and Member of Parliament openly said:

'' In any quarter of the globe, where competition shows itself as likely to interfere with English monopoly, immediately the capital of her manufacturers is massed in that particular quarter; and goods are exported there in large quantities, and sold at such price:; that outside competition is effectually counted out. English manufacture have been known to export goods to a distant market and sell then under cost for years, with a view of getting the market into their own hands again, and keep that foreign market, and step in for the whole when prices revive."

In the comic book world of Libertarian economics, the real world complexity of international trade is reduced to crayons and a coloring book where dumping, currency manipulation, international cartels, national defense and gigantic differences in the geo-political spectrum are tossed aside like yesterday's toilet paper.

If reality doesn't fit your simpleton model - throw it away.

The real world and international trade doesn't conform to Libertarians and their Ivory Tower theories, it violates them at every turn.

Which is why the fastest growing economies practice mercantilism to one degree or another - because in the complex real world - free trade can never exist.

A World Government

Finally, if free trade is to work on a world basis, it means that we must have a world government. This follows because several of the first seven conditions (1.taxes must be comparable 2. a single monetary system must be in use 3.there must be uniform business laws 4.similar business ethics 5.uniform wage rates 6.maximum labor mobility 7.freedom from threat of war) can be met only through an over-all world government which can set uniform taxes, establish and administer uniform laws, furnish a single currency, and assure freedom from war. It is not intended here to argue either for or against world government, but rather to point out that world-wide free trade is an internationalist concept - the very premise underlying the free-trade theory requiring world government as part of the necessary conditions."

Lewis E. Lloyd
Tariffs: The Case For Protection, 1955
p. 69-72

Steve

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Thanks for an honest answer; it's appreciated.

The other question that's been bothering me today is if even State Rights are too broad considering some states are very large and most cities within them have nothing in common except for the fact that they're in the same state.

My answers are always honest. Unfortunately people seem to have a problem with simple and honest.

Yes some states are going to have problems due to their size. However they're going to be better at managing those difficulties than the Federal government could ever be.

[QUOTE=USCitizen;2048096]

Originally Posted by 9aces

Unfortunatley, there seem to be enough of them to fill tombs.

Unfortunate isn't it. Much like the tax code, it's been complicated beyond imagination.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

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.

If it worked Absolutely, true, we wouldn't need a Constitution or any laws. And our most basic laws are indeed based on failures of self-governance: Thou shalt not murder, for example.

But where is the failure of self-governance that makes it illegal for my parents to widen their driveway enough to allow them to not have to shuffle their two cars if they aren't leaving the house in the opposite order they arrived? Where is the failure of self-governance that makes it illegal for me, who has on multiple occasions ended or delayed both calls and text exchanges due to driving conditions, to ever use my cell phone while driving? Where is the failure of self-governance that makes it illegal for a friend of mine, who has probably a hundred gun-years of safe and responsible long-gun ownership, to own a pistol?

The majority of modern laws are not based on failures of self-governance, but on failures of people to conform to what others think they should do/say/like/etc.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

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 ... 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?

The example is based on a real-life situation which occurred in my town.

And the counter-examples are based on real-life situations that occur in Every town across the country, which kind of puts your example into perspective...

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I know someone who is attempting to build a recycling plant in Lawrence, NY and the residents of the 2 million dollar row of homes near the lot are not happy.

I don't know the details and thus could be mistaken, but it initially sounds like the failure in self-governance is on the part of the homeowners. They should have purchased larger tracts, or should offer to purchase the one in question, or address the specifics of the reason for their complaint, such as noise, pests, traffic load, etc rather than make a more generalized attack on the potential business.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Unfortunatley, there seem to be enough of them to fill tombs.

Oh, that they would spend more time filling tombs and less time filling tomes...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

It is not about cheap but liberty. Why would anyone buy a product not made locally? One reason would be it is of a unique quality, e.g., tea grown on the Himalays. Other reason is that it offers a quantitative benefit, i.e., cheap. By allowing this option, we allow the free market to help developing countries. In my opinion, this is far preferable to giving them loans they have no means to repay and then "forgiving" the debt, i.e., transfer the debt to other people. Otherwise, we are dooming the 3rd world in joining the industrialized world any time soon.

Originally Posted by machinehead61

I haven't jumped into this due to time restraints but this Libertarian view is in direct conflict with our U.S. Constitution and our own history as a developing nation.

"We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress: that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States."

"The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents"
Samuel Bryan
December 18, 1787



In the comic book world of Libertarian economics, the real world complexity of international trade is reduced to ...

Never heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff? What I wrote was about individual choice maker not the history of the nation. The idea that individual choices go against the Constitution is outrageous distortion, which seems to be your MO. The power to regulate inter-State commerce is NOT at odds with a person choosing to buy locally or from a far away State. That is, unless by regulate, you mean prohibit commerce.

Finally, it is interesting that you offer evidence that my post is "in direct conflict" by quoting a minority view at the time of the Founding. I guess, in your mind, evidence

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

tomes...

Something kept telling me I was spelling it incorrectly!

Evil,
I know an awful lot of really nice people who, face to, face exude incredible common sense, who do incredibly stupid things for the sake of expedience and some of those things are speeding, texting while driving, talking while driving (even with an ear phone) and not paying attention to their environment and yes, DUI.
Life may be different in some areas of the country but in the NYC/LI region, people NEED to be punished for infractions.

The Constitution is a fine document that allows for reeling in people who are not responsible and that population most probably includes a significantlly smaller number of people than the responsible group.

Towns, cities, counties and states have codes for a reason...and most of those restrictions come AFTER the tragedy.

I wish we could all practice libertarianism, and maybe there are places where one can.
I don't live there.