The Old Right Opposed Tariffs

[Swordsmyth]

There was no such thing a hundred years ago. It wasn't until Coolidge retired that conservatives started letting progs get away with murder by refusing to stand by conservative principles. You know. The way you do.

LOL

We aren't living a hundred years ago, we are living now, and if we want things to be better in a hundred years instead of much worse we can't turn down a candidate who is more good than bad and allow one who is pure evil to win.

I do like how you now support Coolidge, the immigration and tariff hawk.

 

[acptulsa]

LOL

Kamala's back.

We aren't living a hundred years ago, we are living now, and if we want things to be better in a hundred years instead of much worse we can't turn down a candidate who is more good than bad and allow one who is pure evil to win.

That's what they said about Herbert Hoover. By riding the fence in the middle of the road, he allowed the prog wing of the GOP to destroy the economy and caused people to blame conservatives for it. Just like Trump.

I do like how you now support Coolidge...

Now and since before you were born, child.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Kamala's back.



That's what they said about Herbert Hoover. By riding the fence in the middle of the road, he allowed the prog wing of the GOP to destroy the economy and caused people to blame conservatives for it. Just like Trump.



Now and since before you were born, child.

Right, and FDR was such a great improvement we almost became a communist country, Camela will finish the job.
Trump is not a step down from what came before like Hoover was, Trump is a move in the right direction

If you supported Coolidge you wouldn't hold the positions you hold or oppose Trump who is the closest thing we have at this time that can win.

 

[acptulsa]

Right, and FDR was such a great improvement we almost became a communist country...

You're myopic.

I'm talking about how FDR ever got near the White House, and all you can see is weevils. Which weevil is lesser? Which weevil wobbles but don't fall down?

Democrats win when people can't tell the difference between them and Republicans. Considering the "Republican" you foam at the mouth about daily was a Democrat for fifty of his seventy years, obviously you have no way to spot actual conservatives.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're myopic.

I'm talking about how FDR ever got near the White House, and all you can see is weevils. Which weevil is lesser? Which weevil wobbles but don't fall down?

Democrats win when people can't tell the difference between them and Republicans. Considering the "Republican" you foam at the mouth about daily was a Democrat for fifty of his seventy years, obviously you have no way to spot actual conservatives.

You're talking about letting today's FDR into office by opposing the guy who is a move in the right direction just because he isn't perfect.
And you know exactly what you are doing.

 

[acptulsa]

You're talking about letting today's FDR into office by opposing the guy who is a move in the right direction just because he isn't perfect.
And you know exactly what you are doing.

There is no FDR today. If the GOP honestly loses in this economy, to that airhead, it's because people like you fell in love with yet another RINO and the party therefore couldn't nominate anyone decent.

Conservatism will be blamed for a catastrophe it had nothing to do with. But then that's the plan, isn't it comrade? If you don't know exactly what you're doing, it's not because you've never been told. Is there something between your ears to keep useful information like that from going in one and right out the other?

 

[Swordsmyth]

There is no FDR today. If the GOP honestly loses in this economy, to that airhead, it's because people like you fell in love with yet another RINO and the party therefore couldn't nominate anyone decent.

Conservatism will be blamed for a catastrophe it had nothing to do with. But then that's the plan, isn't it comrade? If you don't know exactly what you're doing, it's not because you've never been told. Is there something between your ears to keep useful information like that from going in one and right out the other?

Total inversion, Camela is the bringer of communism and you are doing your level best to ensure she wins by suppressing votes for Trump.
Trump was the best POTUS in decades and a definite move in the right direction.

 

[acptulsa]

Total inversion, Camela is the bringer of communism...

They're both bringers of communism, which you clearly like. That's why you insist they're the only two people for the job. All you're doing is advocating for your favorite flavor of totalitarianism.

 

[Swordsmyth]

They're both bringers of communism, which you clearly like. That's why you insist they're the only two people for the job. All you're doing is advocating for your favorite flavor of totalitarianism.

Utter nonsense, Trump is a remover of communism, just not a perfect one.
And pretending that anyone but Trump can win against the fraud intended to install Camela is blatant gaslighting, it always was, but it's doubly so now that RFK dropped out and joined forces with Trump.

 

[acptulsa]

Utter nonsense, Trump is a remover of communism...

It's a fun urban legend, but just what communism did he remove? Name one single department he shuttered in four years in office. Hell, name one federal building he closed.

You say he does stuff, but nobody can see any of it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's a fun urban legend, but just what communism did he remove? Name one single department he shuttered in four years in office. Hell, name one federal building he closed.

You say he does stuff, but nobody can see any of it.

He removed massive amounts of regulations and placed SCOTUS Justices who are removing far more.
Among many other things he did.

He can't just get rid of departments Congress created and funds with all the RINOs opposing him and you know it.

 

[acptulsa]

He removed massive amounts of regulations...

They're baaaa-ack!

...and placed SCOTUS Justices who are removing far more.

You think Kavanaugh's doing what?

Among many other things he did.

Could you be a little more vague, please? Nah, sorry, I'm asking the impossible.

He can't just get rid of departments Congress created and funds with all the RINOs opposing him and you know it.

You do realize these are executive department agencies, right? He could have tried once. He could have shut any of them down for six months so people could see we were better off without it.

He has the same defeatist attitude you do. He doesn't even try. Or, perhaps, he doesn't try because he doesn't want to give up the kickbacks.

 

[Invisible Man]

I disputed it based on the deliberate deception involved

It was not a deliberate deception. The OP was quoting from an article by Lew Rockwell in which Rockwell used the term "Old Right" with its normal meaning, intended for an audience who were assumed to know exactly what group of people he was talking about. Nobody was supposed to infer anything about the history of the vocabulary of right versus left in politics.

 

[PAF]

Trump was the best POTUS in decades and a definite move in the right direction.

Trump Wants To "Beat China" By Taxing Americans?

By Chris Rossini
1/19/2016


Today's Liberty Report focused on free trade vs. protectionism and how the latter has historically been a segue into war. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams also discussed the heroic Richard Cobden and the political movement called the Anti-Corn Law League that was formed in 1838. See here for more on Cobden.

It's very easy to look at foreign trade on a superficial level. Those big American corporations go to China to exploit cheap labor, thus destroying "our jobs". That's about as far as most people are willing to contemplate the situation. Sadly that's a very naive perspective to hold.

Moving a company's operations (especially for a giant multi-national) is a big deal. It goes way beyond the "cheap labor" argument. Just imagine the legal implications of moving overseas. Now you have to deal with another set of laws in a totally different nation. There are foreign customs and language barriers that must be factored in as well. Then the foreign government itself must be considered. Will your assets be safe? Will the foreign government someday nationalize your business and take it all away from you? Will they strangle you with bureaucracy and red tape?

Amazingly enough, even with a laundry list of things to consider before moving your operations overseas, many American companies conclude that the pros outweigh the cons. If anything, it's not a testament to "exploiting cheap labor," as your average American will conclude, but that the U.S. business environment is so messed up that it's worth the move for many businesses.

Yet, how many Americans consider that they live under the largest government in the history of the world? How many consider that about 1,000 new regulations are created each day? America is swimming in oceans of red tape and bureaucracy. There are laws for everything. Who can you hire? How can you fire? Will you get sued if you fire? Are you discriminating? Are you "socially responsible"? Are you "green"? Are you following the edicts of more government agencies than you can keep track of?

Many business owners throw their hands up and say: "Forget it!"

They find greener pastures and governments that will welcome their businesses. Yet, the average American is well-trained to conclude only one thing: "cheap labor".

Unfortunately, American politicians that run for president don't look to roll back the biggest government in history. They perpetually campaign to take a bad situation and make it even worse.

Donald Trump is a prime example.

Trump likes to talk about trade as a zero sum game, as if there are "winners" and "losers". That's a fundamental misunderstanding of trade and exchange, but it works on the campaign trail, so he sticks with it. Trump boasts about how "we're" going to "beat China" and how he's going to slap tariffs on them.

Unfortunately, his audiences don't understand that when they cheer for tariffs, they're cheering for Trump to tax them! Yes, you read that correctly. Trump plans on "beating China" by taxing Americans!

Trump, as president, would have no power to tax the Chinese. But he can tax Americans, and that's what a tariff is. American consumers would be forced to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. The tariff would also raise revenues for the U.S. government. In other words, money out of your pocket and into the largest government pockets on earth. Trump, instead of shrinking the gargantuan U.S. government would, with tariffs, bloat it further.

In keeping with government tradition, Trump is essentially promising us "Always Higher Prices". Perhaps he can trademark that along with "Make America Great Again".

Protectionism is very dangerous. When governments get started in trade wars, they all too often lead to actual hot wars.

Trump's ideas must be thoroughly rejected.



http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/trump-wants-to-beat-china-by-taxing-americans


​

 

[Matt Collins]

Free Traders think in terms of instant gratification of their wallets and that precludes thinking about anything else, even long term prosperity and wealth.

So you want a tax to force people to pay more money for goods and services? That is the very definition of statism and central-planning.

 

[Matt Collins]

and they are the best source of the funds for the necessary functions of government.

The best source for funding the government are user fees.

 

[Matt Collins]

But it is not good for the economy beyond supplying that which we can't supply for ourselves, it creates fragility and interdependence which feed globalism.

Yes, supply chains need redundancy, and Just In Time can be problematic in times of crisis as COVID proved. But that's a different issue entirely.

What you're advocating is this:

- We should all buy from our own country because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own state becuase closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own town because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own neighborhood because closer to home is better

then..

- We should only buy stuff from our own family....



Follow that line of thinking and it's economic ignorance and nonsense.

First off people should be free to buy from whomever they choose, as long as it is voluntary. And secondly, the best thing to do is to buy from whoever produces what you want at the lowest price.

 

[Matt Collins]

If a business spends all their money on hookers and coke, it is indeed an equitable transaction with both sides benefiting. But that business is still gonna go out of business no matter how equitable it was.

You're confusing multiple things there. Nice try though:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

The global language has become English and other languages are rapidly declining in use and will be effectively extinct within generations.

I don't think so, but even if true, so what? Languages change over time and communication forms evolve. That's been human history since day 1.

The free movement of people and products is rapidly leading to the global homogenization of culture where everyone and everything is the same.

So you want to restrict the free movement of people and products in order to satisfy some sort of idealized world in your head? I think you're on the wrong forum here dude...

No matter where you go in the world you can find a Pizza Hut or a McDonalds and while even those have regional differences now they will eventually all be the exact same.

So what? It's not being forced on anyone. People are free to eat wherever they want. Unless of course people like you get put in charge of the government and take away people's free will.

The global export of Hollywood and its formative impacts on children is gradually aligning everyone in the world to the same customs & values, which is exacerbated by the free movement of people.

I don't disagree, but being a xenophobic autocratic luddite is not the correct answer.

 

[TheTexan]

You're confusing multiple things there. Nice try though:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I'm not confused at all. I have simply pointed out that even if a trade is "equitable" with "both sides benefiting", it does not mean that the trade is "good" for both parties.

When I originally said that its too early to tell if free trade is "good" for the economy, you responded by saying trades are fair and equitable. I responded by pointing out that just because a trade is "fair" and "equitable", does not make it "good" for both parties. This is a demonstrably true statement, and not at all a "strawman". A trade can be "equitable" and "benefiting" while simultaneous being extremely irresponsible. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think so, but even if true, so what? Languages change over time and communication forms evolve. That's been human history since day 1.

Language has historically been one of the main barriers between political integration. When the entire world is speaking the same language, that's one less barrier to one a world government.

Language has also historically been one of the key ways that independent cultures have been preserved. Language served as a "barrier to entry" that prevented people from entering into a culture and diluting it with their foreign influences. With that barrier gone, cultures are gonna be a lot harder to preserve.

And culture itself, has also been one of the main barriers between political integration. With the destruction of languages, and the homogenization of culture, there remains very few barriers to a one world government.

So you want to restrict the free movement of people and products in order to satisfy some sort of idealized world in your head? I think you're on the wrong forum here dude...

I'm on the precisely right forum. There's nothing "anti-freedom" about a person - or a society - wanting to be left alone. It is a choice that people and societies should be allowed to make.

Individuals - and societies - should be free to make whatever choices they want while simultaneously respecting the rights of other individuals and societies to do the same.

The right to be left alone is pretty strongly tied to the right to secede. I consider that right to be paramount. And yes - the right to secede as an individual supercedes any right that a society has to close itself off from trade. I fully respect your right, as an individual, to secede from any society at all, and that includes societies that don't want to participate in free trade.

All freedoms are reliant on the right to secede, and isolationism is secession taken to its absolute limits.

So what? It's not being forced on anyone. People are free to eat wherever they want. Unless of course people like you get put in charge of the government and take away people's free will.

So what? I'm not forcing you to belong to any society that closes off trade. If I want to belong to a society that closes off trade with others, that is my choice. Like all personal choices, it does not require your approval, understanding, or agreement, for it is my choice to make. As long as I - as an individual - am respecting your choices and liberties, I would hope that you could respect my choices in a similar manner, regardless of any difference of opinion between those choices.

I don't disagree, but being a xenophobic autocratic luddite is not the correct answer.

Maybe not for you. For me, it is. I've been all over the world and I don't want anything to do with any of it. It's less about other cultures and more about people in general. I don't like people. Cultures are fine. I have no problem with other cultures. Just people - of every culture. I'd say I'm less of a xenophobe, and more of a misanthrope. I hate everybody equally. The more I can limit the # of people who have any influence on me (socially, politically, economically, whatever), the better.

It's funny you say that I'm xenophobic though, because the policies that I espouse would preserve the many cultures that exist today.

Free trade is destroying the cultures of the world, and should not the supporters of those policies be the ones considered "xenophobic" ?

(I do actually appreciate and enjoy other cultures. I just don't enjoy people of any kind. The cultures - I have no problem with! The more the merrier. Perhaps if cultures were allowed to be preserved I would find a culture that I could appreciate enough to call myself a part of.)

 

[TheTexan]

Yes, supply chains need redundancy, and Just In Time can be problematic in times of crisis as COVID proved. But that's a different issue entirely.

What you're advocating is this:

- We should all buy from our own country because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own state becuase closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own town because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own neighborhood because closer to home is better

then..

- We should only buy stuff from our own family....



Follow that line of thinking and it's economic ignorance and nonsense.

First off people should be free to buy from whomever they choose, as long as it is voluntary. And secondly, the best thing to do is to buy from whoever produces what you want at the lowest price.

The ridiculousness goes both ways. It's not reasonable to expect a neighborhood or a family to have its own microchip factories.

But at the same time it's not exactly reasonable to have huge couches and other shit built & shipped from 6,000 miles away. It's not a sustainable practice.