Founders Not Really for Free Trade!

[Conza88]

Tones? It doesn't? Where? Conz

 

[Brian4Liberty]

“The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.” ~ Mark Twain


“The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.” ~ Hannah Arendt



That given, I'm young & new... but obviously I recognise anarcho-capitalism.. massive pill to swallow... Libertarianism, smaller govt, more liberty in every area... tis what I will work towards

One could argue that libertarianism did work it's way into the system and became the "accepted norm".

But once again, it's the story of unintended consequences. From the "seed" of libertarian thought, we ended up with the following perversions:

- adopting and allowing massive legal/illegal immigration (reducing wages),
- "free trade" which was really centrally managed trade,
- outsourcing of industries and jobs that further destroyed the American wage base,
- consolidation of industries until they were "too big to fail",
- and Alan Greenspan.

As usual, the Oligarchy is more than happy to adopt any portion of any system that they can pervert to their benefit.

 

[sratiug]

I believe it was Hamilton that proposed and advocated tarriffs. Jefferson reluctantly agreed, as it was the least intrusive method of funding on the average American. It would be a vast improvement if we could go back to a flat, untargeted tarriff, instead of the joke we have today with an incomprehensible tax code that no one can understand, yet every single American has to deal with. Jefferson would lead a revolt against what we have today.

+1000

If all other federal taxes were ditched and a flat tariff passed by constitutional amendment that MUST be adjusted each year to cover projected expenses it would be so high as to force so called international corporations (which do not really exist, as their are no national corporations in this country since the federal government cannot charter corporations, only states) to lobby for reduced government spending across the board.

 

[Number19]

There is a new book due to hit the shelves in November ( I have it pre-ordered on Amazon ) that details the political feud between Jefferson and Hamilton :

Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today

Politically, I'm a Jeffersonian.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well yes..but they did agree on the trade issue. Jefferson was limited government and Hamilton was big government. I learn so much from people on this forum..especially about economics..and I read a lot of Pat Buchanan. His book "The Great Betrayal" outlines step by step what happened to our economy. I think ya'll would enjoy it even if some of you wildly disagree with him. tones

 

[Contumacious]

I..I think there must be some level of protectionism..to kind of keep a level playing field, and to try to remain sovereign...or else we get a global New World ORder and lose our civil rights. tones

There is some level of protectionism. Its called the US Constitution. No power was given to the federal government therein to restrain or regulate trade. Nor was any power granted to subject us to foreign jurisdictions. Lastly, no power was granted to regulate or infringe upon our right to bear arms.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

Well yes..but they did agree on the trade issue. Jefferson was limited government and Hamilton was big government. I learn so much from people on this forum..especially about economics..and I read a lot of Pat Buchanan. His book "The Great Betrayal" outlines step by step what happened to our economy. I think ya'll would enjoy it even if some of you wildly disagree with him. tones

Pat Buchanan is OK but he knows nothing about economics. He was shilling for the bailout on PBS the other day. He was one of the first to introduce me to free thinking though, and I have read one of his books. I respect him but distrust him.

 

[Contumacious]

But once again, it's the story of unintended consequences. From the "seed" of libertarian thought, we ended up with the following perversions:

- adopting and allowing massive legal/illegal immigration (reducing wages),

Not true. Most Libertarians are for open borders and competition even in Labor.


-

"free trade" which was really centrally managed trade,

There I agree , no power was authorized to the federal government to adopt NAFTA.

- outsourcing of industries and jobs that further destroyed the American wage base,

Incorrect. Employers have the absolute right to manage their businesses .

- consolidation of industries until they were "too big to fail",

That is possible because of government interference in the marketplace and the US treasury - Banking Industry Complex.

- and Alan Greenspan.

A problem due to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Board.

 

[Conza88]

One could argue that libertarianism did work it's way into the system and became the "accepted norm".

But once again, it's the story of unintended consequences. From the "seed" of libertarian thought, we ended up with the following perversions:

- adopting and allowing massive legal/illegal immigration (reducing wages),
- "free trade" which was really centrally managed trade,
- outsourcing of industries and jobs that further destroyed the American wage base,
- consolidation of industries until they were "too big to fail",
- and Alan Greenspan.

As usual, the Oligarchy is more than happy to adopt any portion of any system that they can pervert to their benefit.

I'd argue against it becoming accepted... they corrupted it that's for damn sure.

So I'd say from a completely different seed, not libertarian.

All the problems thus associated with it; is by label only now... the esoteric agenda continues. The elite is very good at it. The fken douchebags. And it really is easy when you control the msm talking points... one term, all channels, repeat a few times.. enter the public lexicon & water cooler talks around the nation... I've seen it before... new term or whatever, hear something on the news, small talk - exact phrase gets repeated...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Not true. Most Libertarians are for open borders and competition even in Labor.

Yes, that is the libertarian seed. And the elite used that as justification for legal/illegal immigration. They implemented "open borders" for cheap labor.

Incorrect. Employers have the absolute right to manage their businesses .

Once again, you are making my point. The "absolute right to manage their business" was the rationalization used to outsource and move industry overseas. Another perverted implementation of "libertarian" theory.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, that is the libertarian seed. And the elite used that as justification for legal/illegal immigration. They implemented "open borders" for cheap labor.

I see .

Our Founding Fathers had the right to come here to pursue for happiness . Everyone else, specially, the negroids, are illegal, right?

Once again, you are making my point. The "absolute right to manage their business" was the rationalization used to outsource and move industry overseas. Another perverted implementation of "libertarian" theory.

You sound like a McSame/Obama Fascist.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

The Founding Fathers believed everyone should come here for the same freedoms we are supposed to have...but even Jefferson made it clear...a few at a time and wait till those assemilate to our system. He warned about allowing too many immigrants in at one time. tones

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Founding Fathers believed everyone should come here for the same freedoms we are supposed to have...but even Jefferson made it clear...a few at a time and wait till those assemilate to our system. He warned about allowing too many immigrants in at one time. tones

Exactly.

And Ron Paul (which should be the common denominator on the "Ron Paul Forums"), has also said that the number of immigrants needs to be tempered by the economic situation. We all know the economy is going from bad to worse, and unemployment is going up. We also know that wages have been stagnant or dropping for a decade. Massive immigration (and outsourcing) has resulted in the destruction of lower and middle class wages for the benefit of the elite. There have even been recent "jokes" on air by CNBC commentators that at least rising unemployment and lower wages will reduce any chance of inflation. That's great, inflation in everything except wages. Greenspan has also alluded to this in the past as the best technique to reduce the appearance of inflation. Credit has been used for the past decade to attempt to offset the loss in wages, but that was a fool's trap. And now the US citizens are the fools, while Paulson and friends run off with the loot, and now, even more looting through US government bailouts.

There are those believe that all who have concerns about immigration are racists, but that type of racist rhetoric is usually found on Democrat forums. It has been a cheap and easy red herring for Democrat politicians to use to manipulate people and gain support (well, at least since the Democrats did a 180 turn several decades ago).