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

[Matt Collins]

But it's absolutely foolish and naive for anyone to think global trade doesn't have negative consequences as well.

Such as what?

 

[TheTexan]

You seem not to understand that when the government does it that it is anti-freedom.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "government".

If by "government", you mean an organization built for the benefit of its members, and does not use force to compel membership, then no, it is not anti-freedom.

If by "government", you mean an organization that uses force to compel membership, then yes, everything it does (including its very existence), is indeed anti-freedom.

But, in either case, it's the force used to compel membership, and not the actions of the organization, that determine whether it is "anti-freedom" or not.

There is nothing inherently "anti-freedom" about tariffs. There is something inherently anti-freedom about compelling membership.

Learn the difference

 

[TheTexan]

Such as what?

Trade dependencies & cultural/economic homogenization

Plus the wars caused by those trade dependencies

Plus the globalism that these things lead to

Plus the wars caused by the globalism itself

 

[sparebulb]

Rand has jumped the shark when he wistfully recounts the economic miracles of Ronald Reagan.

There are so many republitarted dupes in this country that all one has to say to win them over is repeat the new red religion of Ronald Reagan.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If by "government", you mean an organization that uses force to compel membership, then yes, everything it does (including its very existence), is indeed anti-freedom.

How is it compulsory membership if you can renounce your membership and are free to go elsewhere?

 

[TheTexan]

How is it compulsory membership if you can renounce your membership and are free to go elsewhere?

We've already had a similar discussion and I came to the conclusion that you genuinely hate secession and are pretty much an evil person in heart & policy, and thus as I've said before, I don't have any need or reason to engage in debate with you.

If you're still around in a couple years, feel free to quote this post, and ask for a re-do, but until then, kindly fuck off

 

[Madison320]

What a loser. Rand will never be president. He loves child slave labor producing cheap low quality products. Tariffs are a negotiating tool. They don't cause inflation. We had record low inflation rates during Trump's term.

Sarcasm? Hopefully?

 

[Matt Collins]

But, in either case, it's the force used to compel membership, and not the actions of the organization, that determine whether it is "anti-freedom" or not.

There is nothing inherently "anti-freedom" about tariffs. There is something inherently anti-freedom about compelling membership.

Wow, you're pretty stupid. Swap out the word "tariff" and replace it with "tax" and maybe if your pea-brain can comprehend it you'll figure it out.

 

[Madison320]

For people who appreciate the free market, trade barriers are voluntarily entered into contractually all the time. E.g., Exclusivity Supply/Purchase/Distribution Agreements

In a truly free market, there's no reason to believe that nations couldn't benefit from doing the same thing, on a national scale.

It would be perfectly fine if a large percentage of the population decided voluntarily to boycott buying or selling stuff from another country.

But I've never seen a tariff that was voluntary. It's theft like any other tax.

 

[CCTelander]

Looks like we’ve got another globalist determined to lead America into a one world government nightmare.

FFS, who elects these traitors anyway?

 

[TheTexan]

Wow, you're pretty stupid. Swap out the word "tariff" and replace it with "tax" and maybe if your pea-brain can comprehend it you'll figure it out.

Yea, I've gotten pretty accustomed to this type of response from you. As usual, you resort to ad-hominem attacks rather than even trying to understand my perspective.

 

[TheTexan]

It would be perfectly fine if a large percentage of the population decided voluntarily to boycott buying or selling stuff from another country.

But I've never seen a tariff that was voluntary. It's theft like any other tax.

The concept of a tariff that is voluntary can be hard to understand, because you, like everyone else in this world, have lived the entirety of your life in a cage, and this has shaped/warped your perspective of the world that I can't even begin to describe.

You know how psychiatrists talk about the emotional damage from child trauma or whatever? Multiply that by x1000 and that's the psychological damage that's been done to everyone because of the slavery that everyone has been so conditioned with that incredibly few people can even still recognize it as such.

In more direct terms, you've never seen a tariff that was voluntary, because that concept requires the right to disassociate, and the right to disassociate, has been non-existent ever since Abraham Lincoln set a global precedent that destroyed that right.

It's not surprising that after generations of forced association (a.k.a slavery) on a global scale, people have basically given up on any even imagining any right to disassociate, because it's become so foreign of a concept.

But yes, the bottom line is, as long as your right to disassociate from an organization is respected, it's generally not possible for that organization to violate your rights through taxes, tariffs, or basically any other means. You don't have an automatic right to belong to an organization, but you do have an automatic right to be able to leave it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Trade and commerce prevents wars.

They do not, that's propaganda.

 

[TheTexan]

Looks like we’ve got another globalist determined to lead America into a one world government nightmare.

FFS, who elects these traitors anyway?

I'd be a lot more fine with free trade if the proponents of it, were capable of having adult conversations that acknowledged that there are downsides and risks to it.

But if they aren't capable of acknowledging even that, how can you trust that they've made any kind of honest assessment as whether or not free trade is actually a good idea?

 

[TheTexan]

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.

 

[ProBlue33]

It's a trade off, you get more money, but things will cost more; at least at first, but would you rather pay more for goods to help American independence in manufacturing, or pay more taxes and help the Chinese? To me it is a win, and as Ron Paul says, it sounds good.

I would just add a caveat; keep Canada and Mexico on a separate deal, we need at least some cheap labor in NA for some things, I would rather have the Mexicans do it who are right next door than the Chinese, also much closer for shipping times. The automotive industry is so interconnected with Canada let's not mess that up either.

I am in the tool industry and 90% of stuff is PRC made, and it's a shame because tools are still being made in America.
In fact Milwaukee just open a state of the art hand tool factory in Wisconsin, so it can be done, somebody like Trump knows how to fight globalism that hurts Americans.
https://www.mdm.com/news/tech-operations/operations/milwaukee-tool-opens-new-manufacturing-plant/

 

[TheTexan]

One thing I would note, is that the "free trade" that Ron Paul refers to, is the free market version of free trade. Ron Paul would generally agree that free trade agreements are bad and globalist. I hope we can all at least agree on that

And further, I would just note:

If the US were to get rid of the current free trade agreements -- which seems to me is the "Ron Paul" position -- it would have exactly the same consequences that Rand Paul is complaining about in the original post. It would increase prices for Americans and reduce economic cooperation.

Which we absolutely should do.

 

[Occam's Banana]

One thing I would note, is that the "free trade" that Ron Paul refers to, is the free market version of free trade. Ron Paul would generally agree that free trade agreements are bad and globalist. I hope we can all at least agree on that

Just because they like to invoke the phrase "free trade" in their rhetoric, or stick it into their euphemistically-titled edicts (such as the "North American Free Trade Act"), don't let them gaslight you into thinking that they in any way support or endorse (or have any interest at all in) actual, genuine free trade, or that their policies really have anything to do with it.

Their cynical and manipulative use of the term "free trade" is every bit as empty and bogus as their use of terms such as "affordable care" and "inflation reduction" (vis-à-vis the "Affordable Care Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act", for example) - and for exactly the same reasons.

Whenever they say "free trade", what they actually mean is "[micro-]managed trade". [...]

There's even a name for it: "The Ron Paul Rule"

https://twitter.com/DanielLMcAdams/status/1664126742649356288

 

[Sonny Tufts]

We've already had a similar discussion and I came to the conclusion that you genuinely hate secession and are pretty much an evil person in heart & policy, and thus as I've said before, I don't have any need or reason to engage in debate with you.

If you're still around in a couple years, feel free to quote this post, and ask for a re-do, but until then, kindly fuck off

I wasn't referring to secession at all, but to an individual's being forced to be a member of a body politic, since I have come to the conclusion that you hate the concept of government and are a wannabe anarchist.

 

[Madison320]

The concept of a tariff that is voluntary can be hard to understand, because you, like everyone else in this world, have lived the entirety of your life in a cage, and this has shaped/warped your perspective of the world that I can't even begin to describe.

You know how psychiatrists talk about the emotional damage from child trauma or whatever? Multiply that by x1000 and that's the psychological damage that's been done to everyone because of the slavery that everyone has been so conditioned with that incredibly few people can even still recognize it as such.

In more direct terms, you've never seen a tariff that was voluntary, because that concept requires the right to disassociate, and the right to disassociate, has been non-existent ever since Abraham Lincoln set a global precedent that destroyed that right.

It's not surprising that after generations of forced association (a.k.a slavery) on a global scale, people have basically given up on any even imagining any right to disassociate, because it's become so foreign of a concept.

But yes, the bottom line is, as long as your right to disassociate from an organization is respected, it's generally not possible for that organization to violate your rights through taxes, tariffs, or basically any other means. You don't have an automatic right to belong to an organization, but you do have an automatic right to be able to leave it.

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?