Do you support the removal of all trade barriers with other nations?

[LibertyEagle]

What does that mean, "lost to China"? If you mean assembly, so what? Do you really want menial jobs stuffing printed circuit boards? The USA still has the highest value added jobs and technology in the computer world - the development of operating systems, standards, and software. Look at Apple, Android, Microsoft, and Cisco.

Actually, a high percentage of the once high-paying programming jobs have been moved overseas.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[josh b]

Tear them all down. Having bureaucrats control international trade is a terrible idea.

what about protectionism?

Protectionism doesn't work at all. Haven't you read Economics in One Lesson or the works of any major Austrian economist? It may protect specific industries, but in the long run everyone but the protected industry gets screwed. Much of shifts overseas is a result of anti-business practices by the government here at home. You can't solve the problem of violent interference in the market with violent interference in the market.

Even though we mainly invented computer technology, its been lost to Asia.

Maybe they are just better with computers? Their electronics industries are way better than ours.

 

[enoch150]

So far I am the only no vote. I would keep some tariffs in place, even if other countries completely opened trade to us and didn't manipulate their currencies.

Either you will fund our (future) limited government on the backs of our people or through tariffs.

Free trade abroad and taxation at home? No.

The tariff is paid by Americans who buy the foreign goods. All taxes collected by the government come on the backs of "our people".

 

[Southron]

The tariff is paid by Americans who buy the foreign goods. All taxes collected by the government come on the backs of "our people".

So you prefer internal income taxes to fund the government? Buying foreign goods with tariffs would be generally optional.

 

[enoch150]

So you prefer internal income taxes to fund the government? Buying foreign goods with tariffs would be generally optional.

Working is also optional...

No, I don't believe in income taxes any more than tariffs. If we must have a government (and I really don't know why anyone would want one), the best options to my mind involve pay for service. For example, road maintenance and construction would be paid for with tolls or a gas tax. Court fees imposed on those who use the court system would pay for court costs. Parents would pay for schools. User fees for library services. I don't believe in the need for a standing army, but at the national level there might be a head tax to pay for defense.

There is a stronger incentive to control taxes when the money is tied to a specific service rather than thrown into a general fund.

 

[Southron]

Working is also optional...

No, I don't believe in income taxes any more than tariffs.

The reason I ask is because tariffs were original methods of funding our republic and worked well for many years.

But I figured you for an anarchist or some flavor of one. I also assume 74% that answered this poll are also anarchists, which leads me to believe most here do not want a limited Constitutional government at all or at best want to deny any method of funding one.

 

[Seraphim]

Anarchism does not exist - it's a fallacious and empty adjective.

An (no), archism (structure).

There is NO SUCH THING as NO STRUCTURE.

Choosing National protectionist tarrifs over home grown taxation is not a better solution - in both cases the taxes and ill effects are felt by the people of the country.

The reason I ask is because tariffs were original methods of funding our republic and worked well for many years.

But I figured you for an anarchist or some flavor of one. I also assume 74% that answered this poll are also anarchists, which leads me to believe most here do not want a limited Constitutional government at all or at best want to deny any method of funding one.

 

[enoch150]

The reason I ask is because tariffs were original methods of funding our republic and worked well for many years.

But I figured you for an anarchist or some flavor of one. I also assume 74% that answered this poll are also anarchists, which leads me to believe most here do not want a limited Constitutional government at all or at best want to deny any method of funding one.

And your response to the service-tax suggestion rather than tariffs is ...?

 

[Southron]

Anarchism does not exist - it's a fallacious and empty adjective.

An (no), archism (structure).

There is NO SUCH THING as NO STRUCTURE.

Choosing National protectionist tarrifs over home grown taxation is not a better solution - in both cases the taxes and ill effects are felt by the people of the country.

Would you like the U.S. to return to and maintain a limited Constitutional republic?

 

[Southron]

And your response to the service-tax suggestion rather than tariffs is ...?

I agree that is an appropriate method of funding beyond what limited tariffs could provide.

 

[ProIndividual]

I voted yes, and this includes trading labor, which means immigration...unless you can magically remove the labor of the individual from the individual who does the labor.

Any restrictions on any trade is protectionism, and causes the American people to be poorer, by making their products more expensive. You will only protect and create monopolies...something all free market capitalists should be against.

 

[enoch150]

I agree that is an appropriate method of funding beyond what limited tariffs could provide.

One of my major concerns is that some people are taxed for services they don't use, or are taxed disproportionately to their use. What services, in your opinion, ought tariffs fund?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

So you prefer internal income taxes to fund the government? Buying foreign goods with tariffs would be generally optional.

There is no such thing as external taxation.

 

[Southron]

One of my major concerns is that some people are taxed for services they don't use, or are taxed disproportionately to their use. What services, in your opinion, ought tariffs fund?

Just the basic operating costs of a limited federal government. Most of our government excesses are unconstitutional anyway. Anything beyond the basics could be done at the state level.

I wouldn't mind funding federal courts with tariffs as long as the scope of their power is diminished. Maintaining free trade among the states should be a main priority.

 

[Southron]

There is no such thing as external taxation.

Are you on favor of a limited Constitutional republic? And if so, how would you fund it?

 

[ProIndividual]

Are you on favor of a limited Constitutional republic? And if so, how would you fund it?

I'll answer even though you didn't ask me.

No, I don't support minarchism, or any other monopoly (it's a monopoly on violence, gang turf aka land area, and the monopoly on the social contract). That being said, I'd much more prefer a Constitutional Republic to what we have now. We are, like it or not, allies. We are all on a train headed for the cliff of tyranny, and we all want to get the train to make a U-Turn. You want off the train at "minarchist station", I simply ask you not FORCE me off the train at your stop, and allow me to continue to "anarchist junction". You DO NOT have to stay on the train with me, you simply have to get off the train where you like, and STFU about how "anarchism doesn't make any sense, boohooo"...as if we never heard any of your concerns before, and haven't hundreds of times shown their logical flaws.

Now that we all know that we are allies, in spite of your belittling nature toward us anarchists, we can address your question.

If you had a Constitutional Republic in this country, with a population soooooo much larger than the last time you had such a thing, the funding for such a republic should not require forced payments, like taxes or tariffs.

300,000,000+ people...half of which are adults at least....this means you could fund government in at least three ways alone, or together.

First, user fees. And tariffs are NOT user fees. Ports shouldn't be government owned, and if not government owned, then the idea a tax on users of a port is a "user fee" is bunk. Besides, the consumer just pays for the tariff at the point of sale...so you tax those who NEVER used the port.

Secondly, donations. If your government is truely as small as the one we had in the Constitutional Republic era, then given the population change, but no additional welfare services to weight down the budget, there shouldn't be an issue funding this Republic with donations, as it does very little, meets only a few monthes a year, and doesn't spend money on very much. This easily pays for defense, courts, Congress, and the rest...but that would mean ACTUALLY going back to the very minarchist Constitutional Republic, not some bigger version which most advocates of "Constitutional Republics" want. (I won't even get into the slippery slope issue, I'm sure you've heard it and ignored it before.)

Thirdly, and lastly for now, is lottery. A national lottery, as all lotteries now, would be played often by many folks. As a matter of fact, the most rampant players are the poorest people...so it's acting as a regressive form of "tax"...except 100% voluntary, and with at least a CHANCE of getting something back in return (unlike now).

With these 3 methods used together, or just one by themself, we should have no problem funding the government in a Constitutional Republic...given you mean the one we used to have, simply adjusting the amount needed for the now humungous population in comparison to what they had back then. The "tax" burden on the individual, as it were, decreases as population grows...unless of course you grow government functions with population. The roads are growing slower than population, as are our borders (haven't changed for quite a while). So, there is no reason to increase the burden per "tax" payer, or citizen. The burden would be less than at the founding of the Constitution, not more, therefore making a NO TAX nation completely feasible. (Granted, this means giving people liberty to choose to pay or not...but that would just show how much "consent of the governed" you really do have to uphold the legitimacy of your government, since it obstensibly derives it powers from "the consent of the governed". )

Otherwise, I'm calling out "STATISM", and not Republicanism...it's pretty much that simple.

All in all, I hope you get your Constitutional Republic, because then I can get my anarchism easier...afterall, we simply take your minarchism to it's logical conclusion. You aid us, and we aid you, like it or not.

Signed,
Your Unwelcome Ally.

Ps. Statism is both of our enemy, meaning our enemy's enemy is our friend (even without liking each other's ideas at all).

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Are you on favor of a limited Constitutional republic? And if so, how would you fund it?

If a government is to exist, it has to be funded voluntarily.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Remove any all trade barriers, restrictions, etc.

Anything less is protectionism---even so called "reciprocal trade agreements"...and, as such will lower our standard of living.

 

[romacox]

I support free trade, but not what the government calls "Free Trade"...get government out of the way... True free trade does not have governments subsidizing or negotiating for a select few businesses that agree to their "global Governance"

True free trade is decided by the natural working of the markets.