Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I guess I missed this thread for a while. I'm not sure exactly what your question is USCitzen. It is interesting - although not surprising - that machinehead referenced this quote to support his position.

JOHN ADAMS, our second President, in his last annual message referred to our economical system, and congratulated the country upon the great prosperity then existing, and added: " I observe, with much satisfaction, that the product of the revenue during the present year has been more considerable than during any former period.

" This result affords conclusive evidence of the great resources of the country, and of the wisdom and efficiency of the measures which have been adopted by Congress, for the protection of commerce and preservation of the public credit."

Evidently he consider acts to protect commerce, i.e., free trade, to support regulatory nightmare we have today; preservation of the public credit with the debt we have today. It just goes to show how impressed some people are with the copy and paste capability of today's technology. In other words, to those like machinehead, the volume of what is pasted is what matters, not the actual content.

Without going into a lot of unnecessary details and steps for Libertarian country to exist, as a people, we need to embrace the wisdom of minimizing coercive agents. It is a conceptual understanding, akin to including in the meaning of people, Blacks and women, e.g., with the right to vote, own property, etc. By minimizing coercive agents, I do not mean to eliminate them instantly. We need to fundamentally recognize that in order to have a moral society, a pre-requisite is a free society and that necessarily means minimizing coercive agents. I say minimize as opposed to eliminate b/c history shows a criminal element of 2-3% of the population, where crimes are acts against others property.

If you start by understanding this and applying that understanding to problems, the question becomes easy. If you start by looking at the leviathan that exists, I doubt you'll get there or maintain your sanity.

Excellent!
Now about the interaction with the Natives?

Originally Posted by michael h

Nation sizes complicate interaction of liberty and constraint of liberty.

That is a good reason why nation size ought to be small. Where are the priorities, man?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

That is a good reason why nation size ought to be small. Where are the priorities, man?

As a Libertarian I presume you are a minimalist.
Can you please answer the "Natives" question?
I am presuming at this point that would you state that poor planning is one's own problem and that the pilgrim's would opt to die of starvation and disease.
If this is your opinion I will not mock you for holding by your principles.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Excellent!
Now about the interaction with the Natives?

What was excellent about the post? What about the interaction with the Natives? Why are you looking backward rather than forward?

What about the interaction with the Romans or Greeks or Persians or Indians or Visigoths or Barbarians or Biblical tribes, etc? If you want to speculate that history would be different if we had a Libertarian society X number of years ago, I will concede the point. The question for me is not the abstract possible benefits of unintended consequences of a non-Libertarian society. You may recall I've written that being a slave is very safe, i.e., a benefit; although a benefit most people would probably decline. The question is moving forward, the obvious direct benefits of a society where voluntary exchange is maximized and coercion is minimized.

There is a double standard to support a women's right to choose (abortion) but deny so many other choices to everyone. Libertarianism is pro choice on everything, philosophically consistent and I believe the most moral and compassionate system possible (as the burden of government on the little guy is least).

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.

From the Salt Lake Tribune
A Salt Lake Tribune Special Report - American imports, Chinese deaths

I am saying that if tariffs were applied to imports that were manufactured in ways that do not comply with U.S. safety laws, then these plants would loose a financial incentive to operate in an unsafe manner.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

What was excellent about the post? What about the interaction with the Natives? Why are you looking backward rather than forward?

What about the interaction with the Romans or Greeks or Persians or Indians or Visigoths or Barbarians or Biblical tribes, etc? If you want to speculate that history would be different if we had a Libertarian society X number of years ago, I will concede the point. The question for me is not the abstract possible benefits of unintended consequences of a non-Libertarian society. You may recall I've written that being a slave is very safe, i.e., a benefit; although a benefit most people would probably decline. The question is moving forward, the obvious direct benefits of a society where voluntary exchange is maximized and coercion is minimized.

There is a double standard to support a women's right to choose (abortion) but deny so many other choices to everyone. Libertarianism is pro choice on everything, philosophically consistent and I believe the most moral and compassionate system possible (as the burden of government on the little guy is least).

I'd rather get the truth than a dodge.
You are one to criticize others relying on the past?

Answer the Natives question as a Libertarian.
It's that simple.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

From the Salt Lake Tribune
A Salt Lake Tribune Special Report - American imports, Chinese deaths

So, your theory is people by products from a far off land so they die over there?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I'd rather get the truth than a dodge.
You are one to criticize others relying on the past?

I asked a question but you replied with a question rather than answer mine and take about the truth rather than a dodge?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Answer the Natives question as a Libertarian.
It's that simple.

I've asked you to clarify what is the Native question?

So we drop the self-reliance doctrine in order to stay alive and we have to establish an abode.
Let's say we need to go from structure to structure.
Do we all chip in to build a road or does each household build their own road?
Do we all agree that each other's roads should lead into the neighbor's roads?
Do we all agree to build roads of relatively equal quality?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I asked a question but you replied with a question rather than answer mine and take about the truth rather than a dodge?




I've asked you to clarify what is the Native question?

You get here and winter's quickly approaching and you're starving and some of you are getting a fever and some of your winter clothing didn't quite make it on the sea voyage.
Do you accept help from the Native Americans?
And yes, this IS what REALLY happened.

As a non-sequitor, as I still expect a concrete yes or no to the "Natives" question...
A I still expect some concrete answers to the "roads" question.

Does anyone think that Capitol Hill can screw a nation of well over 300,000 people for over 30 years and then, all of a sudden, half of Capitol Hill turns around and screams, "Self-Reliance"?
Please don't answer this postnig as I am only letting off steam due to all the bullsh!t I'm hearing from Conservative and Libertarian media outlets.
I do hear bullsh!t from Liberal outlets but I expect them to scream that everything is a "right".

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

So, your theory is people by products from a far off land so they die over there?

Laissez faire capitalism maximizes owner’s equity without regard to human costs.

America has rightly passed laws to limit how much human suffering may be expected of a worker in exchange for pay to feed, clothe, and house his family.

My theory is that if we allow products into this country which circumvent these laws, we are not only complicit in the suffering of these workers; we give their employers an unfair economic advantage over American employers who, by law, must provide a safe work environment.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

So we drop the self-reliance doctrine in order to stay alive and we have to establish an abode.
Let's say we need to go from structure to structure.
Do we all chip in to build a road or does each household build their own road?

Both, neither, and none of the above, you're looking for a catch-all, and there isn't one. Some people would build roads and charge tolls, which would be their return on investment for building said road. They would be vested in maintaining said road for that's their income and those roads would be through vital junctions. Some people may choose to pool resources to do so, some individuals may choose to do so.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Do we all agree that each other's roads should lead into the neighbor's roads?

Why? I may not want to go in the direction they do. Same for them. If I want a road going in the direction I want it to go, I'll need to either build it myself, convince enough others to build one with me, or find another way.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Do we all agree to build roads of relatively equal quality?

Nope. It would help if they were in many cases, but roads which bear less traffic wouldn't need to be built to the same standard anyway. Remember the builder of the road who does so with their own coin does so with a purpose.