It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.
Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Thread starter Peace Piper
- Start date
It pretty much eliminates all tariffs between 11 different countries. That certainly makes the trade far more free than it would be otherwise.
There's no libertarian argument for higher tariffs. I understand the opposition some libertarians have to "managed trade," but actually supporting the concept of high tariffs can't be defended from a libertarian perspective.
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
What brand of libertarianism is that, exactly?
Usually libertarianism means following the constitution. Do you realizes there are parts of this bill that run counter to that? Probably not since you keep throwing out the word "libertarianism" to defend Rand Paul. But it's consistent with you evangelical christian types. Running around saying life is precious and you are pro-life then in your next breath say it's okay to kill innocent civilians in foreign countries if we kill a few bad guys next to them. Life is only precious when YOU folks decide it is.
Whatever. You can change the subject if you want, but I've been very anti war in the positions I've taken here, opposing the vast majority of wars and U.S military interventions.
Rand may not be a libertarian, but he's far more libertarian than those who advocate high tariffs.
I don't know whether I would vote for this if I were a member of Congress or not. There are good parts to it and bad parts to it, and I would have to determine whether or not the good parts out weighed the bad parts. But I certainly don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to support a trade deal that dramatically lowers or eliminates tariffs between 11 different countries.
Lowering taxes for foreign countries is not in the Constitution. Ceding power away from Congress towards the UN is.
Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
thoughtomator
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,267
The TPP is the antithesis of free trade.
thoughtomator
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,267
Unless you can demonstrate someone advocating high tariffs, spare us the insulting strawman arguments.
thoughtomator
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 11,267
"Nativism"?
Are you being paid to write this stuff, or are you a volunteer propagandist?
Peace Piper
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,466
The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations
But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism.
Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.
All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines...
One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations
But the TPP and its promoters are full to the brim with ironies. It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism.
Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.
All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines...
One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.
Why is it so secret, if it's a good thing for everyone?
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,678
If tariffs were the only means of supporting a limited central government, like the constitution states, and income and corprate and "user" taxes were eliminated, bet your ass I would be in favor of tariffs.
What I am not in favor of is ceding even more regulatory authority to foreign interests.
We already have enough "Regulation without Representation".
My question is whether Rand really knows what the TPP is or was he just reading his speech that someone else inserted that language into? Im still going to see how he votes before throwing him under the bus. Rhetoric doesn't mean much these days, regardless of the content, it's the votes that matter. Im just too jaded by politician-speak (say one thing, do another) to get worked up by speech snippets anymore. ymmv
There were several people on this thread promoting a Pat Buchanan article where he used protectionist rhetoric. I've also seen comments from a lot of people here that trade agreements cost Americans jobs. That's a protectionist argument and an argument against free trade.
I think I would argue that it makes the trade freer than it was before, because it lowers or eliminates tariffs, but it's obviously not the ideal concept of free trade that most of us understand. Free trade is simply trade between two countries with no taxes on imports and exports and no regulations. But the question is whether or not the lower tariffs contained in these trade agreements trump the regulations, including some bad regulations. I'm not exactly sure how I would vote on it and what conclusion I would come to if I were a member of the U.S Senate, but I would imagine that Rand is in favor of this agreement because he supports lowering tariffs between countries.
NewRightLibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,589
Lets hope Rand is just being a demagogue. If he comes out with serious sustained support of the TPP in its present form, I will not support his Presidential run nor his Senate career and neither should anyone who supports liberty.
Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
From another discussion here on the forum... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Congress-can-SHUT-DOWN-the-Ron-Paul-Forum-and
Similar threads
