Rand Paul: Trump's tariffs will hurt Americans...

[TheTexan]

For idiots like me could you give me an example of how a tariff would be voluntary for me?

I like to fish. If Trump imposed a tariff on fishing goods from China how would I buy some fishing line without paying the tariff?

Here's how that would work, you would:

1) Secede
2) Buy some fishing line

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tex8Mr8kFrw​

 

[Madison320]

Here's how that would work, you would:

1) Secede
2) Buy some fishing line

But you have to let me secede before you cut off my access to fishing line.

 

[TheTexan]

But you have to let me secede before you cut off my access to fishing line.

I don't see anything inherently that gives you that right, but if its important to you, you could certainly negotiate it as part of your membership agreement.

In any case, a tariff usually doesn't come out of nowhere - there would typically be advanced notice.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Source: ChatGPT

Seems pretty accurate to me.

World War I (1917-1918)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. initially sought to remain neutral but was drawn into WWI due to its economic ties to Allied powers and threats to its trade routes. Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare disrupted American shipping and trade with Europe, particularly with the Allies, leading to significant economic losses. Additionally, globalist ideals—such as President Wilson’s vision for a world safe for democracy—influenced the U.S. to join the war to support Allied democracies.

World War II (1941-1945)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Economic ties with Allied nations and global concerns over Axis power expansion influenced the U.S. entry into WWII. Japan’s aggression in Asia threatened American trade interests in the Pacific, and an embargo on Japanese goods eventually escalated tensions. Globalism, seen in the U.S. goal of creating a stable international order post-war, also shaped American participation as the U.S. sought to establish a peaceful and cooperative global economy.

Korean War (1950-1953)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The Korean War was part of a broader Cold War strategy to contain communism globally, which the U.S. believed would safeguard free-market economies and global trade stability. South Korea’s economic alignment with Western allies meant the U.S. saw it as crucial to maintaining a capitalist sphere in Asia, vital for trade routes and regional stability.

Vietnam War (1955-1975)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. intervened in Vietnam as part of the broader Cold War strategy to prevent the spread of communism, fearing it would destabilize Southeast Asia. Global trade concerns motivated the U.S. to support non-communist governments in the region, as Southeast Asia was a significant source of raw materials and trade routes crucial to U.S. and allied economies.

Gulf War (1990-1991)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait threatened the global oil supply and the stability of the Persian Gulf, a critical region for U.S. and global energy interests. The U.S. and its allies intervened to protect this resource, maintaining open trade channels and preventing Iraqi control over a significant portion of the world’s oil supply. The coalition aimed to uphold international law, reflecting globalist ideals of cooperative security.

War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, globalism played a role in the subsequent nation-building effort, as the U.S. aimed to prevent Afghanistan from being a base for international terrorism. Stabilizing Afghanistan and promoting democracy were seen as ways to secure the region, fostering an environment less hostile to global trade and security. Additionally, the 9/11 terrorist attack itself, was the direct result of globalist interventions in the region.

Iraq War (2003-2011)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Iraq’s significant oil reserves were a strategic consideration, with the U.S. interested in securing the region’s resources. The war was part of a broader global strategy to promote democratic governance in the Middle East, creating stable allies to ensure energy security and counter terrorism. Globalism was also evident in the U.S.’s emphasis on removing a perceived threat to the international order by ousting Saddam Hussein.

Funny, this got no rebuttal.
And the list can go much farther back in history, all through recorded history.

 

[Madison320]

I don't see anything inherently that gives you that right, but if its important to you, you could certainly negotiate it as part of your membership agreement.

In any case, a tariff usually doesn't come out of nowhere - there would typically be advanced notice.

I think I mentioned this before but there's a giant logical hole in your theory. You can literally say any horrible government action is moral by adding that you believe in the right to secede.

So a 100% income tax would be moral because you believe in the right to secede.

Taking your firstborn child and committing them to slavery. No problem, you believe in the right to secede.

Denying life saving medical treatment (from another country). Perfectly moral because you can secede.

 

[TheTexan]

I think I mentioned this before but there's a giant logical hole in your theory. You can literally say any horrible government action is moral by adding that you believe in the right to secede.

That's not a bug, that's a feature. What you consider to be "horrible", someone else may consider "great". If you don't want any part of it - then great, don't have any part of it.

So a 100% income tax would be moral because you believe in the right to secede.

As long as your right to secede is respected (it's obviously currently not), an income tax is 100% moral yes.

Taking your firstborn child and committing them to slavery. No problem, you believe in the right to secede.

Well, given that I believe there is an absolute right to secede, there would no such thing as "slavery". Slavery is basically defined as, the inability to secede.

Denying life saving medical treatment (from another country). Perfectly moral because you can secede.

They aren't denying you life saving medical treatment though. You are denying yourself medical treatment, by choosing to continue to belong to that organization.

If you don't like it, secede, and go get your medical treatment.

And again -- obviously, -- if your right to secede is not respected, as is the current status quo -- then basically all of this goes out the window. In that case the government's very existence is immoral and everything they do -- and even don't do -- is immoral.

In other words, your counterargument is flawed because you are assuming an automatic right to be a member of an organization without needing to follow its rules. Which is pretty clearly not a natural right.

 

[Madison320]

That's not a bug, that's a feature. What you consider to be "horrible", someone else may consider "great". If you don't want any part of it - then great, don't have any part of it.



As long as your right to secede is respected (it's obviously currently not), an income tax is 100% moral yes.



Well, given that I believe there is an absolute right to secede, there would no such thing as "slavery". Slavery is basically defined as, the inability to secede.



They aren't denying you life saving medical treatment though. You are denying yourself medical treatment, by choosing to continue to belong to that organization.

If you don't like it, secede, and go get your medical treatment.

And again -- obviously, -- if your right to secede is not respected, as is the current status quo -- then basically all of this goes out the window. In that case the government's very existence is immoral and everything they do -- and even don't do -- is immoral.

In other words, your counterargument is flawed because you are assuming an automatic right to be a member of an organization without needing to follow its rules. Which is pretty clearly not a natural right.

I agree that if we're talking about a totally voluntary organization, they can do anything they want because I can choose not to join.

But I was talking about tariffs in the US were it's not voluntary to secede. So it is a violation of my rights.

 

[TheTexan]

So do I have to move when I secede?

Nope. Especially not in the current environment. In the current environment, where every government is illegitimate, they have no legitimacy whatsoever, which by default, means no matter how or where you want to secede, it's going to be more legitimate than whatever claims they try to make to oppose it. (You would however need to physically defend your claim against your illegitimate aggressors.)

In a world where secession is actually respected, you may or may not have to move. Ideally, the membership agreement would specify the details of how secession would work.

Regardless of whatever secession agreement you have may agreed to, however, you are entitled - by natural right - to a secession negotiation process that is equitable and restorative, and not punitive. This can be considered similar to how divorce agreements are handled.

Exactly how those negotiations would play out is an area of law and ethics that has not been explored hardly at all, but from my perspective, the general rule should be, if you built or bought your home and you live in it, I would generally expect that you should be able to keep your home when you secede, if that's what you choose to do.

 

[Madison320]

Nope. Especially not in the current environment. In the current environment, where every government is illegitimate, they have no legitimacy whatsoever, which by default, means no matter how or where you want to secede, it's going to be more legitimate than whatever claims they try to make to oppose it. (You would however need to physically defend your claim against your illegitimate aggressors.)

In a world where secession is actually respected, you may or may not have to move. Ideally, the membership agreement would specify the details of how secession would work.

Regardless of whatever secession agreement you have may agreed to, however, you are entitled - by natural right - to a secession negotiation process that is equitable and restorative, and not punitive. This can be considered similar to how divorce agreements are handled.

Exactly how those negotiations would play out is an area of law and ethics that has not been explored hardly at all, but from my perspective, the general rule should be, if you built or bought your home and you live in it, I would generally expect that you should be able to keep your home when you secede, if that's what you choose to do.

I actually changed my response, but it was after you replied.

Here's what I changed it to:

I agree that if we're talking about a totally voluntary organization, they can do anything they want because I can choose not to join.

But I was talking about tariffs in the US were it's not voluntary to secede. So it is a violation of my rights.

 

[TheTexan]

I agree that if we're talking about a totally voluntary organization, they can do anything they want because I can choose not to join.

But I was talking about tariffs in the US were it's not voluntary to secede. So it is a violation of my rights.

Yep. The US is an illegitimate organization, so everything it does -- and doesn't do -- is a violation of your rights.

I'm sure I'll take some flak for saying this, but that also means, them not implementing tariffs is a violation of my rights.

I know that goes against the principles of positive and negative rights, but that framework of ethics is inherently flawed because it's based on a foundation of slavery. When you take into account the right to disassociate, there is no longer any such thing as a positive or negative right. There are just rights.

 

[Madison320]

Yep. The US is an illegitimate organization, so everything it does -- and doesn't do -- is a violation of your rights.

I'm sure I'll take some flak for saying this, but that also means, them not implementing tariffs is a violation of my rights.

I know that goes against the principles of positive and negative rights, but that framework of ethics is inherently flawed because it's based on a foundation of slavery. When you take into account the right to disassociate, there is no longer any such thing as a positive or negative right. There are just rights.

Assume we live in your world where everyone can secede. There's 3 organizations you're thinking about joining. All of them rely solely on tariffs to fund their organization. One has an across the board tariff of 5% that has never changed. The other has tariffs that are implemented at the discretion of the president and it varies wildly from year to year. The third does not allow any imports or exports. Which one would you choose?

 

[TheTexan]

Assume we live in your world where everyone can secede. There's 3 organizations you're thinking about joining. All of them rely solely on tariffs to fund their organization. One has an across the board tariff of 5% that has never changed. The other has tariffs that are implemented at the discretion of the president and it varies wildly from year to year. The third does not allow any imports or exports. Which one would you choose?

In the current global economic and cultural environment, assuming organization #3 is large enough to provide what it needs on its own, I would go with #3 - no imports and no exports.

Don't need it, don't want it.

 

[Madison320]

In the current global economic and cultural environment, assuming organization #3 is large enough to provide what it needs on its own, I would go with #3 - no imports and no exports.

Don't need it, don't want it.

For your organization to be big enough to provide what it needs on its own, and have any resemblance of modern society, like cars and computers and modern medicine, it would have to be way bigger than the US and then it probably wouldn't let you leave.

 

[TheTexan]

For your organization to be big enough to provide what it needs on its own, and have any resemblance of modern society, like cars and computers and modern medicine, it would have to be way bigger than the US

The US is definitely big enough to provide what it needs on its own.

There may be some very small exceptions such as rare minerals and such but even those I think we're good on.

Bananas and such that are easier to grow in the tropical regions, I have no problem with importing.

and then it probably wouldn't let you leave.

That's definitely a valid concern.

 

[jmdrake]

Thomas >>>> ChatGPT. ""peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none." You've conflated entangling alliances with free trade. I'll go through your examples.

Source: ChatGPT

Seems pretty accurate to me.

World War I (1917-1918)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. initially sought to remain neutral but was drawn into WWI due to its economic ties to Allied powers and threats to its trade routes. Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare disrupted American shipping and trade with Europe, particularly with the Allies, leading to significant economic losses. Additionally, globalist ideals—such as President Wilson’s vision for a world safe for democracy—influenced the U.S. to join the war to support Allied democracies.

The U.S. was shipping weapons to Great Britain. That's why Germany started sinking our ships.

https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/News/...istics-and-american-entry-into-the-great-war/

At the turn of the 20th century, most Americans had grown weary of nearly a century of war. In the latter half of the 19th century alone, Americans fought and died in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and the Mexican War, not to mention the Indian Wars. In fact, Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election with the slogan “He kept us out of war.”

But soon after war broke out in August 1914, America began to supply food, materials and even munitions to Britain and other German enemies, such as Italy. Germany — itself under pressure from a British sea blockade — began using its "unterseeboote," better known as U-boats or submarines, to sink these merchant ships in 1915. The Germans believed that American merchant ships, by delivering supplies, were contributing in a real way to the success of their enemy, Great Britain.
​

Without the "entangling alliance" the U.S. would have served all markets equally including Germany and her allies. No munitions to anybody....or munitions to everybody. Food and materials to everybody. And how to deal with Great Britian's blockade? "Dear Great Britian. If you don't allow us to send food to the starving people of Germany, we won't sell you any food either. Free trade for both sides or no trade with either side. Your choice."

World War II (1941-1945)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Economic ties with Allied nations and global concerns over Axis power expansion influenced the U.S. entry into WWII. Japan’s aggression in Asia threatened American trade interests in the Pacific, and an embargo on Japanese goods eventually escalated tensions. Globalism, seen in the U.S. goal of creating a stable international order post-war, also shaped American participation as the U.S. sought to establish a peaceful and cooperative global economy.

How exactly are you putting "an embargo on Japanese goods" in the "free trade" category?

Korean War (1950-1953)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The Korean War was part of a broader Cold War strategy to contain communism globally, which the U.S. believed would safeguard free-market economies and global trade stability. South Korea’s economic alignment with Western allies meant the U.S. saw it as crucial to maintaining a capitalist sphere in Asia, vital for trade routes and regional stability.

Hmmmm.....trying to "contain communism" in North Korea led to war and now Trump is trying to "contain communism" in China and that's different because......? Another entangling alliance masquerading as "free trade."

Vietnam War (1955-1975)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. intervened in Vietnam as part of the broader Cold War strategy to prevent the spread of communism, fearing it would destabilize Southeast Asia. Global trade concerns motivated the U.S. to support non-communist governments in the region, as Southeast Asia was a significant source of raw materials and trade routes crucial to U.S. and allied economies.

Yet another entangling alliance. Funny enough, once we "lost" the Vietnam war, Vietnam eventually because a tourist destination and exported wonderful goods and services to the U.S. like...flappy bird. (Being faecetious on flappy bird). Still, trade wasn't the problem. Entangling alliances were.

Gulf War (1990-1991)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait threatened the global oil supply and the stability of the Persian Gulf, a critical region for U.S. and global energy interests. The U.S. and its allies intervened to protect this resource, maintaining open trade channels and preventing Iraqi control over a significant portion of the world’s oil supply. The coalition aimed to uphold international law, reflecting globalist ideals of cooperative security.

The entangling alliance of the petro-dollar combined with the entangling alliance of the U.S. at first encouraging Saddam to invade Iran and then the Saddam being upset because Kuwait was undermining the price of oil when Saddam needed it to be high to pay off his Iran war debt.

https://adst.org/2016/09/sparking-iraqs-invasion-kuwait-loans-land-oil-access/

Interestingly enough Israel supported Iran during the Iran / Iraq war. Another entangling alliance. (Oh what a tangled web we weave!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran–I raq_war

War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Trade and Globalism Influence: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, globalism played a role in the subsequent nation-building effort, as the U.S. aimed to prevent Afghanistan from being a base for international terrorism. Stabilizing Afghanistan and promoting democracy were seen as ways to secure the region, fostering an environment less hostile to global trade and security. Additionally, the 9/11 terrorist attack itself, was the direct result of globalist interventions in the region.

The CIA wanted the opium fields the flourish again to fund their dirty wars. (Another entangling alliance). Unocal wanted a pipeline. And there are rare earth minerals. Not sure what any of this has to do with tarriffs though. The U.S. would be better off without the CIA's entangling alliances.

Iraq War (2003-2011)
Trade and Globalism Influence: Iraq’s significant oil reserves were a strategic consideration, with the U.S. interested in securing the region’s resources. The war was part of a broader global strategy to promote democratic governance in the Middle East, creating stable allies to ensure energy security and counter terrorism. Globalism was also evident in the U.S.’s emphasis on removing a perceived threat to the international order by ousting Saddam Hussein.

Trade restrictions on Iraq likely motivated Osama Bin Laden to attack the U.S. Again the issue was the restriction of trade coupled with entangling alliances which fueled terrorism leading up to 9/11, 9/11 itself and the U.S. response to 9/11.



500,000 Iraqis, most of them children, dead from U.S. restrictions on trade.

So [MENTION=991]Matt Collins[/MENTION] might not have articulated the point in the most elloquent way, but he is correct. Free trade, real free trade, tends towards peace. But if you're going to pretend that embargos and/or CIA black market ops are somehow "free trade"....well that's kind of disingenous.

 

[jmdrake]

Funny, this got no rebuttal.
And the list can go much farther back in history, all through recorded history.

Rebutted here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...rt-Americans&p=7261792&viewfull=1#post7261792

 

[TheTexan]

Thomas >>>> ChatGPT. ""peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none." You've conflated entangling alliances with free trade. I'll go through your examples.

That's kind of the whole point, that free trade has a strong tendency to create entangling alliances.

So it's not exactly conflation, to point that out.

The U.S. was shipping weapons to Great Britain. That's why Germany started sinking our ships.

Ok. But why was the US shipping weapons to Great Britain? (The answer is, its economic ties)

Without the "entangling alliance" the U.S. would have served all markets equally including Germany and her allies. No munitions to anybody....or munitions to everybody. Food and materials to everybody. And how to deal with Great Britian's blockade? "Dear Great Britian. If you don't allow us to send food to the starving people of Germany, we won't sell you any food either. Free trade for both sides or no trade with either side. Your choice."

I completely agree, without entangling alliances, the US would have not have needed to get involved. But the US did have entangling alliances, and the US had entangling alliances because of its economic ties.

That's like saying, well if Timmy wasn't so fat he wouldn't have had a heart attack. But how did he get so fat? Eating too much chocolate.

We can all agree that if Timmy wasn't a fat fuck he would be more healthy. And while chocolate is fine in moderation, it's hard to say that chocolate had nothing to do with Timmy being fat.

How exactly are you putting "an embargo on Japanese goods" in the "free trade" category?

ChatGPT wrote that and I decided to keep that in to see if anyone was actually reading. (Good job!)

I also left it in to maintain intellectual honesty, as it is a valid point - embargos can lead to war. But keep in mind, if there wasn't trade to begin with, the embargo wouldn't have been needed at all.

Hmmmm.....trying to "contain communism" in North Korea led to war and now Trump is trying to "contain communism" in China and that's different because......? Another entangling alliance masquerading as "free trade."

Well, that's kind of what happens when entangling alliances are a direct and predictable consequence of free trade.

Timmy eats a lot of chocolate, Timmy gets fat.

Cause, and effect.

Yet another entangling alliance. Funny enough, once we "lost" the Vietnam war, Vietnam eventually because a tourist destination and exported wonderful goods and services to the U.S. like...flappy bird. (Being faecetious on flappy bird). Still, trade wasn't the problem. Entangling alliances were.

If only little Timmy were healthy, he would still be with us. But it had nothing to do with the chocolate, I swear!

The entangling alliance of the petro-dollar combined with the entangling alliance of the U.S. at first encouraging Saddam to invade Iran and then the Saddam being upset because Kuwait was undermining the price of oil when Saddam needed it to be high to pay off his Iran war debt.

https://adst.org/2016/09/sparking-iraqs-invasion-kuwait-loans-land-oil-access/

Interestingly enough Israel supported Iran during the Iran / Iraq war. Another entangling alliance. (Oh what a tangled web we weave!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran–I raq_war

Poor Timmy, but it's definitely not the chocolate's fault

The CIA wanted the opium fields the flourish again to fund their dirty wars. (Another entangling alliance). Unocal wanted a pipeline. And there are rare earth minerals. Not sure what any of this has to do with tarriffs though. The U.S. would be better off without the CIA's entangling alliances.

Oh look, it's poor Timmy again.

Trade restrictions on Iraq likely motivated Osama Bin Laden to attack the U.S. Again the issue was the restriction of trade coupled with entangling alliances which fueled terrorism leading up to 9/11, 9/11 itself and the U.S. response to 9/11.

9/11 was caused by trade restrictions on Iraq? That's a new one but I'll give you credit for a fresh idea. I'm up by like 1000 points but I'll put up a point on the board for you for that one. Well done.

 

[Madison320]

The US is definitely big enough to provide what it needs on its own.

There may be some very small exceptions such as rare minerals and such but even those I think we're good on.

Bananas and such that are easier to grow in the tropical regions, I have no problem with importing.



That's definitely a valid concern.

In the real world there's a strong correlation between free trade and prosperity.

According to heritage economic freedom index:

Top ten countries with most free trade:

Norway
Bahrain
Georgia
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Taiwan
Mauritius
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore

Top ten least free:

North Korea
Sudan
Bhutan
Venezuela
Barbados
Central African Republic
Chad
Equatorial Guinea
The Bahamas
Burundi

 

[TheTexan]

In the real world there's a strong correlation between free trade and prosperity.

According to heritage economic freedom index:

Top ten countries with most free trade:

Norway
Bahrain
Georgia
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Taiwan
Mauritius
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore

Top ten least free:

North Korea
Sudan
Bhutan
Venezuela
Barbados
Central African Republic
Chad
Equatorial Guinea
The Bahamas
Burundi

So, according to heritage economic freedom index, which has trade freedom as a significant part of its score, countries with free trade get high scores?

Imagine that