Rationale on voting for the Free Trade agreements?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron was in Nevada yesterday, but we can presume how he'd vote on the agreements.

Has Rand said anything about why he voted for them?

 

[Brett85]

In the Fox news interview, Rand said that free trade agreements help to lower the cost of goods here in the United States. Regarding the debate over "managed" trade deals, I imagine Rand thinks that these trade deals still make the trade more free than it was before, even though the trade deals are far from ideal. The trade deals all dramatically lower or completely eliminate tariffs with these countries, and that's very important.

 

[sailingaway]

They are a violation of US sovereignty.

Ouch.

 

[Brett85]

They are a violation of US sovereignty.

Ouch.

In what way? Bilateral trade agreements don't force us to be a member of the WTO.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Signed off on Iran letter written by Chucky Schumer.

Waffled on his Dad's position on al-Awaki killing.

Votes for another sovereignty killing, de-industrializing trade agreement with a foreign power.

Third fucking strike yet?

Duly noted and filed away.

 

[low preference guy]

disappointed in Rand for this.

this is not even good politically.

 

[Brett85]

Signed off on Iran letter written by Chucky Schumer.

Waffled on his Dad's position on al-Awaki killing.

Votes for another sovereignty killing, de-industrializing trade agreement with a foreign power.

Third fucking strike yet?

Duly noted and filed away.

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

 

[low preference guy]

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

highly regulated trade =/= free trade

it continues to amaze me how some people can't get such a simple thing

 

[Brett85]

Also, I guess people also disagree with Justin Amash's support for these trade deals along with the Cato Institute, Reason, and every other respected libertarian organization.

 

[low preference guy]

Also, I guess people also disagree with Justin Amash's support for these trade deals along with the Cato Institute, Reason, and every other respected libertarian organization.

lol. Reason and CATO aren't "respected libertarian organizations", unless you think supporting and defending the Federal Reserve for decades is libertarian. you're confusing statism with libertarianism.

 

[Brett85]

highly regulated trade =/= free trade

it continues to amaze me how some people can't get such a simple thing

Voting against trade deals which dramatically lower or eliminate tariffs is a vote in favor of protectionism. These trade deals make the trade far more free than it was before. Unregulated free trade isn't something that's ever going to pass Congress. The result of pushing for "unregulated free trade" simply means that we have much higher tariffs with our friends around the world.

 

[Brett85]

lol. Reason and CATO aren't "respected libertarian organizations", unless you think supporting and defending the Federal Reserve for decades is libertarian. you're confusing statism with libertarianism.

So those are "statist" organizations, huh? Good grief. This is the kind of stuff that really does a lot of damage to Ron's campaign.

 

[low preference guy]

Voting against trade deals which dramatically lower or eliminate tariffs is a vote in favor of protectionism. These trade deals make the trade far more free than it was before. Unregulated free trade isn't something that's ever going to pass Congress. The result of pushing for "unregulated free trade" simply means that we have much higher tariffs with our friends around the world.

that's like supporting creating the income tax if it would lower overall taxes. it's stupid because you're giving up principles and creating an environment which results in higher taxes in the long run.

similarly, when you approve an environment in which the government regulates trade under the pretense that it will make trade slightly freer, you're giving up your principles and accepting government high regulation of trade in the long run. worst of all, you call that free trade. it's not just ineffective and counterproductive, it's also dishonest.

 

[low preference guy]

So those are "statist" organizations, huh? Good grief. This is the kind of stuff that really does a lot of damage to Ron's campaign.

those manage trade agreements are statist. Reason and CATO aren't "respected" libertarian organizations, at least not to anyone who considers the federal reserve an important issue and values consistency over a long period of time.

 

[Brett85]

that's like supporting creating the income tax if it would lower overall taxes. it's stupid because you're giving up principles and creating an environment which results in higher taxes in the long run.

similarly, when you approve an environment in which the government regulates trade under the pretense that it will make trade slightly freer, you're giving up your principles and accepting government high regulation of trade in the long run. worst of all, you call that free trade. it's not ineffective and counterproductive, it's also dishonest.

If you were a member of Congress, how exactly would you succeed in getting Congress to go along with having unregulated free trade? You would just wave your magic wand and make that happen? Because your votes against these trade deals would simply succeed in keeping tariffs high, nothing else. I'll take regulated trade with low tariffs over regulated trade with high tariffs. That's the only two options that Rand has to vote on.

 

[sailingaway]

In what way? Bilateral trade agreements don't force us to be a member of the WTO.

Oppose the South Korea Free Trade Agreement

Dear Colleague:

Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called “free trade.” Like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pact, written by unelected trade bureaucrats, spans 1,000 pages.

It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments.

And, President Obama’s Korea Agreement sets up foreign tribunals to which the United States mst submit for judgment. Foreign investors are allowed to skirt the U.S. court system to directly ue the U.S. government for trade pact violations before UN and World Bank tribunals. Those provisions enable demands by such forms for compensation in U.S. taxpayer funds for violations of the special foreign investor privileges the pact provides. There are nearly 80 Korean firms with more than 200 establishments set up in this country now that would acquire these new rights to raid our Treasury using foreign tribunals.

We urge you to oppose President Obama’s Korea Agreement.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul Walter B Jones

//

 

[low preference guy]

If you were a member of Congress, how exactly would you succeed in getting Congress to go along with having unregulated free trade? You would just wave your magic wand and make that happen? Because your votes against these trade deals would simply succeed in keeping tariffs high, nothing else. I'll take regulated trade with low tariffs over regulated trade with high tariffs. That's the only two options that Rand has to vote on.

i'd do what Ron Paul is doing. i'd explain why the so called free trade agreements are anything but. i wouldn't give up like you would.

 

[low preference guy]

that people can call an agreement spanning more than 1000 pages "free trade" is laughable. not even orwell came up with that one. too crazy.

 

[Brett85]

"And, President Obama’s Korea Agreement sets up foreign tribunals to which the United States mst submit for judgment. Foreign investors are allowed to skirt the U.S. court system to directly ue the U.S. government for trade pact violations before UN and World Bank tribunals. Those provisions enable demands by such forms for compensation in U.S. taxpayer funds for violations of the special foreign investor privileges the pact provides. There are nearly 80 Korean firms with more than 200 establishments set up in this country now that would acquire these new rights to raid our Treasury using foreign tribunals."

Thanks for posting that. My guess would be that Rand probably thinks that the low tariffs trump some of the bad parts of the deal. I think his reasoning is probably that he'll vote for a trade deal if it's 80% good and 20% bad, because it's still a net positive overall.

 

[Brett85]

i'd do what Ron Paul is doing. i'd explain why the so called free trade agreements are anything but. i wouldn't give up like you would.

I respect your opinion on this issue, and Ron's as well. But I would think that this is an issue where there's room for disagreement within the liberty movement. I certainly don't think that Rand should be trashed simply for voting in favor of trade deals that lower tariffs. Rand, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee all voted for these deals. If we're going to say that Ron is the only true liberty candidate, the liberty movement won't have much of a future. Nobody is ever "pure" enough.