Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?

[LibertyEagle]

I glean this from the CP platform, and as Baldwin is the nominee of this party, in support of its platform. This agenda will be there, overtly, or covertly. To think otherwise is naive.

By this logic, none of us should have been supporting Ron Paul. Because the "party" supports the global war on terror.

What happened to the belief that we judge each individual on their own merits? Or, was that all just rhetoric that we spewed because it sounded good at the time?

 

[LibertyEagle]

(Yes, I realize Fed policy and other factors certainly played a part.)

Ya think?

 

[Aratus]

isn't it a mckinley era nostrum namely that you can get away with slapping on high tariffs in
the middle of a boom as a means to increase revenue, however 1930s logic says that if you pull
a smoot-hawley during a long intense recession if not at the begining phase of a depression,
you deepen the same? you all of a sudden stop trade and toss MORE people out of work! its
a cycle... and mr. baldwin is a man of the cloth. i'm feeling safer with bob barr on this one.
ron paul knows his oinions. we are at the start of a long shallow recession thanks to g.w bush...

 

[Aratus]

could a wise formula be to decrease expendatures by twice the amount of the tax breaks one has
as one de-constructs and weedwhacks the IRS? and this is as one by stages de-regulates the Fed?

 

[Aratus]

both obama and ms. clinton seek to lessen the burden for people in the lower brackets as
the tax amounts for the upper brackets remained basically constant or are only slightly decreased?
having high tariffs sub for a soaking of the rich or a heavier burden on the middle classes could
work if we are on the upward climb of a semi-speculative boom, whereas if we are seeing
a major tanking of the economy, high tariffs do not generate revenue if people cease to trade.
balancing the budget and pruning the gov't at the federal level is quite a balancing act...

 

[[email protected]]

As far as I know the best we got from Barr is an "I support him" thing. Which is different from an official endorsement technically. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me anybody. He also introduced Ron Paul at CPAC. But all of this wasn't until late last year whereas Baldwin was there for Ron Paul from the begining, campaigning for him, etc. The same can't be said for Barr.

I would support Baldwin over Barr for that reason alone. I don't agree with his Christian approach, but he is pretty good overall.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Can you please provide links to where Baldwin supports tariffs? I'm not suggesting he doesn't, but Google is failing me and I can't find anything. All I find is where he states he supports free trade.

CP Platform:
Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of these United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

Also:
Against "inadequately regulated" trade.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=40

Now, if the argument is tariffs over income taxes of flat tax or FAIR tax, for what is needed for (I hope we all agree much reduced) federal government spending, then let's have that debate (I'm open to persuasion there), but to advocate dirigiste policies is to admit that, on this issue, the CP is diametrically opposed to Dr. Paul's agenda.

 

[Aratus]

is this to be construed by the CP as a bringing back of certain tariffs? --- i am only a nephyte concerning the lore from the times of william mckinley

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's where Baldwin talks about the economy:
http://baldwin2008.com/issues/economy/

I think this needs to be expounded upon.

 

[Bradley in DC]

CP Platform:
Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of these United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

Also:
Against "inadequately regulated" trade.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=40

Now, if the argument is tariffs over income taxes of flat tax or FAIR tax, for what is needed for (I hope we all agree much reduced) federal government spending, then let's have that debate (I'm open to persuasion there), but to advocate dirigiste policies is to admit that, on this issue, the CP is diametrically opposed to Dr. Paul's agenda.

I do NOT know if Baldwin supports these view, just that that has been the CP's position and is still in their platform. Does someone else know if Baldwin is a dirigiste?

 

[Aratus]

good question! (((i had to look up the word!))) ---- was the port of new york at least 1/3rd of our tariffed and grafted 1800s trade?
hense john nast and the tweed ring cartoons? subliminally--- having a high tariff was usually a short sweet and fast economic decision
that was in excess of the usual routine. a high tariff for a long duration has a probability of stiffling trade, and is in the diplomacy zone
of having an embargo slapped on... much of the notorious graft monies sprang from tariff monies in the robber baron 1880s and 1890s...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How did we go from a situation less than four months ago where Paul could have easily gotten both the CP and LP nominations if he wanted to, all the way back to this old-school split between Christophobic Libertarians and protectionist Constitutionists? The very fact that Paul was equally acceptable to both parties shows the gap between them was, is, and always will be bridgeable. The formula for the bridging appears to be to find a pro-life, Christian Libertarian who fully supports a Constitution-based approach to governing.

Paul would have been able to gently correct the CP on trade while advancing the national sovereignty they are seeking.He would likewise have corrected the Bible-hating tendencies of the more ardently secular 'humanist theocrats' in the LP, and thus would not alienate 100 million+ believing Christians in the country. The social liberalism some left-libertarians think is the heart and soul of the party simply is not, and should be set aside to bond the two liberty parties. The CP likewise needs to lose the authoritarian tone of many of their beliefs, which is what is really behind the Libertarian's hostile reaction to them. Paul has shown us the way to unity, let's not drift off the road.

 

[Bradley in DC]

How did we go from a situation less than four months ago where Paul could have easily gotten both the CP and LP nominations if he wanted to, all the way back to this old-school split between Christophobic Libertarians and protectionist Constitutionists? The very fact that Paul was equally acceptable to both parties shows the gap between them was, is, and always will be bridgeable. The formula for the bridging appears to be to find a pro-life, Christian Libertarian who fully supports a Constitution-based approach to governing.

Paul would have been able to gently correct the CP on trade while advancing the national sovereignty they are seeking.He would likewise have corrected the Bible-hating tendencies of the more ardently secular 'humanist theocrats' in the LP, and thus would not alienate 100 million+ believing Christians in the country. The social liberalism some left-libertarians think is the heart and soul of the party simply is not, and should be set aside to bond the two liberty parties. The CP likewise needs to lose the authoritarian tone of many of their beliefs, which is what is really behind the Libertarian's hostile reaction to them. Paul has shown us the way to unity, let's not drift off the road.

<stumbling for something poetic to add my support> :o

 

[DaveH]

I was under the impression Ron Paul's stance on trade was he would only trade with those countries who would be open and fair in their dealings with us. I took that to mean if a county chose to import products to us then we would accept those imports as long as they agreed to accept our exports. I've heard him say that more than a few times and I don't see that as any different from what the CP has endorced.
Closing our borders and bringing all the jobs home that have been exported abroad would be in line with his stance on trade. This is the view of the CP and probably the view of roughly 90% of the people (exempting the elitist one world government crowd) in the USA.
This very issue is why many of us have quit paying the LP dues and switched to the CP.

 

[tajitj]

I guess this issue is where the "revolution" will split.

I will never vote for Barr, period.

And to answer the question of the thread, yes they should. Especially Ron Paul supporters after all, Baldwin has supported RP and the message and has come out and endorsed RP early on. I don't know but did Barr endorse Ron Paul? Endorse the message of liberty?

Maybe a 3 way with Ron Paul write in getting most votes. To bad most will not count.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I was under the impression Ron Paul's stance on trade was he would only trade with those countries who would be open and fair in their dealings with us. I took that to mean if a county chose to import products to us then we would accept those imports as long as they agreed to accept our exports. I've heard him say that more than a few times and I don't see that as any different from what the CP has endorced.
Closing our borders and bringing all the jobs home that have been exported abroad would be in line with his stance on trade. This is the view of the CP and probably the view of roughly 90% of the people (exempting the elitist one world government crowd) in the USA.
This very issue is why many of us have quit paying the LP dues and switched to the CP.

Citation please? I've never heard what you've heard.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

By this logic, none of us should have been supporting Ron Paul. Because the "party" supports the global war on terror.

What happened to the belief that we judge each individual on their own merits? Or, was that all just rhetoric that we spewed because it sounded good at the time?

I do not know who the 'none of us' are, but speaking for myself, I do not support the GOP, never did, and only registered as a republican to vote for RP in the primary...I voted, and now am an unaffiliated independent.

 

[IRO-bot]

CP Platform:
Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of these United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

Also:
Against "inadequately regulated" trade.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=40

Now, if the argument is tariffs over income taxes of flat tax or FAIR tax, for what is needed for (I hope we all agree much reduced) federal government spending, then let's have that debate (I'm open to persuasion there), but to advocate dirigiste policies is to admit that, on this issue, the CP is diametrically opposed to Dr. Paul's agenda.

LOL. No offense but this was a weak argument. Why cite the CP platform and say it is what Chuck believes.

We all know Barr doesn't believe in the LP platform!

 

[LibertyEagle]

I do not know who the 'none of us' are, but speaking for myself, I do not support the GOP, never did, and only registered as a republican to vote for RP in the primary...I voted, and now am an unaffiliated independent.

None of us: You me, and every other Ron Paul supporter.

but speaking for myself, I do not support the GOP, never did, and only registered as a republican to vote for RP

Exactly. Just because Ron Paul is a Republican does not mean he agrees with their platform.

 

[WRellim]

Yes, we get all that, but the issue is the CP's advocacy of using our tariff system to "protect" American companies with IS by definition protectionism and corporatism. That's the problem.

Spoken with the verve of a true libertarian-even-if-it-kills me mindless "anarchy" attitude.

• Tariffs are NOT evil in and of themselves.
• Tariffs ARE constitutional.
• Tariffs CAN be strategically beneficial (part of providing for defense).
• Tariffs CAN be economically beneficial.
• If used appropriately and judiciously, tariffs can PROMOTE freer trade.

And much like the media's falsely "labeling" of Ron Paul as an "isolationist" -- the label of "protectionist" is also just as often falsely applied to anyone who advocates the Constitutional use of Tariffs.



P.S. Oh, and Bradley... you have NOT thought the "Fair Tax" thing through far enough... in practive, it would actually be far WORSE than the current Income Tax arrangement on a number of fronts, and would provide the Government even MORE power over people than it currently has. (Start by thinking of the countless number of ways that the "prebate" could be confiscated, withheld, "temporarily suspended" etc -- in short it could be used in a punitive fashion, w/o any practical recourse or redress other than a long delayed court battle w questionable outcome.)