{tube} Michael Savage Says Forget Habeas Corpus In Order To Deal With Iran

I appreciate your intention of defending free markets, but you're not. You're not thinking your argument through to its logical conclusion.

You are advocating that one nation's government ought to intervene to prevent a foreign company (if subsidized by a foreign government) from selling in our market. First, you must acknowledge that you are still advocating for government intervention to prevent government intervention; do you see the problem? Government intervention is harmful because it breeds corruption; in other words: who will regulate the regulators? Its an infinite regress of regulators, ultimately incentivizing corruption wherever you decide to stop the regress at. The only unbiased regulator is the MARKET. So you will never win the argument that you ought to increase government intervention in order to prevent a different form of government intervention.

Further, you ignore the long term. Government subsidized markets always fall to free markets because of the inherent efficiency of free markets. So IF a government subsidized company can temporarily manufacture a product better than a domestic company--assuming no legitimate domestic property rights are infringed--then we ought to embrace it for as long as we can! As detailed above, this only frees up the marginal savings to go to other products (or to save), which is a double benefit to consumers as well as our economy. It is unfortunate that a foreign gov't-subsidized company exists, but we have no basis on which to dictate to other countries to what extent they can centrally plan their economies; we can only set the example. It seems that you aren't aware of just how much foreign nations intervene in the major industries of the world already; consider the oil industry as a prime example.

Who says that the government subsidized product is better than the domestic one?

You are looking at this through the angle of consumerism. You are saying "it doesn't matter how it happens, as long as I get the product at a lower price, I am fine with it." But what you fail to address is the hypocrisy of your ideology. Judging by your words and language with regards to this situation, you are probably against sanctions on another country because of the reasons you've listed for this situation. Well, by a subsidized company dumping its product into our markets at such a low price (remember, subsidized), it is unfairly distorting the market the same way sanctions would, because both are promoted and supported by government.

When a foreign company can undercut an American one, albeit indirectly through the help of their government, it infringes upon the value proposition and competitive advantage of an American firm, who by no fault of their own, was materially affected

Lets enact this argument into the Iranian situation. Our sanctions could force the Iranian government to react to our government interference into their market. You defend their possible defensive action of closing the Strait or wanting to have a nuke to counterbalance our government's actions. How is this any different?
 
Last edited:
Who says that the government subsidized product is better than the domestic one?

No one. A free market will decide which product is better. Perhaps you should more carefully re-read what I posted, and particularly notice this sentence: "Government subsidized markets always fall to free markets because of the inherent efficiency of free markets. So IF a government subsidized company can temporarily manufacture a product better than a domestic company--assuming no legitimate domestic property rights are infringed--then we ought to embrace it for as long as we can!"
 
No Free Beer, Bing:

I have enjoyed this discussion. I don't want to be rude by not replying further after I engaged you in debate, so I would like to at least do the courtesy of letting you know I don't have any more time tonight to discuss this. Please know that I have an intellectual respect for both of you because only a few other people would choose to discuss economic theory on RPF on a Friday night :D
 
ldn

Sorry, but you are not getting the point. No one is saying that we shouldn't be a melting pot or that we shouldn't be who we are. What I am saying, because I am not going to speak for Bing, we do have a culture. If you ignore that fact, than you do so at your own peril. There is such thing as American culture, whether you want to recognize that or not.

The culture in upstate NY is radicaly diffrent from the one I live in now in the south. I think this is a good thing because there are elements to both that I dissagree with. There are massive changes across the country. That is not meaning I'm asking for open borders though.
 
ldn

Sorry, but you are not getting the point. No one is saying that we shouldn't be a melting pot or that we shouldn't be who we are. What I am saying, because I am not going to speak for Bing, we do have a culture. If you ignore that fact, than you do so at your own peril. There is such thing as American culture, whether you want to recognize that or not.

America is largely made up of a group of disparate cultures.

A few miles away from me is a ghetto. The distance between their culture and mine is greater than the difference between a German and an Italian, or between a Korean and a Japanese.

If a group of illegal immigrants from Poland came in and formed a community near me, their culture which sprung up thousands of miles away would still be closer to mine than would that of people living in a ghetto where every person in it is a fully legal US citizen who has been here many generations.

If a group of illegal immigrants from Thailand came in and formed a community near me, their culture would in many respects be very different from mine, but it would be a lot more amenable to me than would be the culture of a ghetto. I could live in their community, with perhaps only a little inconvenience. Their community could form around where I live, with perhaps only a little inconvenience. If a ghetto was to form around me, I would move away.

I respect that Pat tries to inject some sanity into issues that people and especially the left are hypersensitive on, but breaking everything down into nationalist terms makes his position unwieldy at best.

Btw, here is some video footage from ghetto life about 4 hours away from me. While of course the video plays up the violent aspects of life there, you see enough to easily grasp that this is a vastly different culture.

 
Last edited:
America is largely made up of a group of disparate cultures.

A few miles away from me is a ghetto. The distance between their culture and mine is greater than the difference between a German and an Italian, or between a Korean and a Japanese.

If a group of illegal immigrants from Poland came in and formed a community near me, their culture which sprung up thousands of miles away would still be closer to mine than would that of people living in a ghetto where every person in it is a fully legal US citizen who has been here many generations.

If a group of illegal immigrants from Thailand came in and formed a community near me, their culture would in many respects be very different from mine, but it would be a lot more amenable to me than would be the culture of a ghetto. I could live in their community, with perhaps only a little inconvenience. Their community could form around where I live, with perhaps only a little inconvenience. If a ghetto was to form around me, I would move away.

I respect that Pat tries to inject some sanity into issues that people and especially the left are hypersensitive on, but breaking everything down into nationalist terms makes his position unwieldy at best.

Btw, here is some video footage from ghetto life about 4 hours away from me. While of course the video plays up the violent aspects of life there, you see enough to easily grasp that this is a vastly different culture.



Well, I can only speak for myself and say that I am not a nationalist. All I am saying is that we do have a culture. We do have a way of life. But it's even deeper than that, people who enter this country illegally are invaders. How come if we, the US, go into another country without any justification or approval, people on here label us as invaders? Then, when an individual does it to us, disrespects our sovereignty, it is okay? An invasion is an invasion. One of the few powers the federal government has is to protect this country. Illegal immigration is a national security issue. The federal government has an obligation to protect our borders, enforce our laws and protect our sovereignty.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can only speak for myself and say that I am not a nationalist. All I am saying is that we do have a culture. We do have a way of life. But it's even deeper than that, people who enter this country illegally are invaders. How come if we, the US, go into another country without any justification or approval, people on here label us as invaders? Then, when an individual does it to us, disrespects our sovereignty, it is okay? An invasion is an invasion. One of the few powers the federal government has is to protect this country. Illegal immigration is a national security issue. The federal government has an obligation to protect our borders, enforce our laws and protect our sovereignty.

I'm not so much disagreeing with you, just coming at it from a different angle. :)

Illegal immigration is part of what is destroying the United States. I totally agree with you. My issue is that Pat Buchanan addresses issues like this on a nationalist basis, whereas I am looking at it from an anarchist perspective, which is far, far less problematic in terms of personal liberty, and also potentially far more effective in terms of maintaining many of the values which paleocons like Pat seek to strengthen. It is more just a matter of people choosing the way of life that they want, and having much greater latitude in making those choices.

Illegal immigration per se is not an issue, but the nature and totality of illegal immigration today is. The fact that people are legal Americans does not mean we form an identical community.
 
I'm not so much disagreeing with you, just coming at it from a different angle. :)

Illegal immigration is part of what is destroying the United States. I totally agree with you. My issue is that Pat Buchanan addresses issues like this on a nationalist basis, whereas I am looking at it from an anarchist perspective, which is far, far less problematic in terms of personal liberty, and also potentially far more effective in terms of maintaining many of the values which paleocons like Pat seek to strengthen. It is more just a matter of people choosing the way of life that they want, and having much greater latitude in making those choices.

Illegal immigration per se is not an issue, but the nature and totality of illegal immigration today is. The fact that people are legal Americans does not mean we form an identical community.

Where in Tampa are you? I went to USF.
 
My issue is that Pat Buchanan addresses issues like this on a nationalist basis, whereas I am looking at it from an anarchist perspective, which is far, far less problematic in terms of personal liberty, and also potentially far more effective in terms of maintaining many of the values which paleocons like Pat seek to strengthen. It is more just a matter of people choosing the way of life that they want, and having much greater latitude in making those choices.

that is why there are people called "national anarchists"
 
Didnt read all 14 pages. I listen all of it. That person can sue radio host and get some money. Every lawyer could win this case.
 
Protectionist destroys economies and standard of living, not enhances.

If that was the case, then the top ten nations rated as highest in "quality of life" would not be European nations that have protectionist trade polices.

Nor would China and Japan be the world's third and second largest single economies in the world.
 
You have yet to show why it is paramount to have must have industries remain within our borders. Most protectionists don't realize either that trade fosters an environment of peace, friendship, and mutual benefit.

"When goods fail to cross borders, soldiers will".

Then why have we been invading our "trading partners" for over a hundred years now?




War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
 
If that was the case, then the top ten nations rated as highest in "quality of life" would not be European nations that have protectionist trade polices.

Nor would China and Japan be the world's third and second largest single economies in the world.

You guys must stop with the fallacious arguments!

It does not necessarily follow that because the top 10 nations in the world have protectionist policies, that protectionist policies are therefore superior to a non-protectionist policy.

Its not difficult to conceptualize that the top nations are suppressor nations which exploit the skills of their citizens and prohibits the citizens from becoming free traders on the global market.
 
You guys must stop with the fallacious arguments!

It does not necessarily follow that because the top 10 nations in the world have protectionist policies, that protectionist policies are therefore superior to a non-protectionist policy.

Its not difficult to conceptualize that the top nations are suppressor nations which exploit the skills of their citizens and prohibits the citizens from becoming free traders on the global market.

Have you been ignoring what Bing and I have been saying or no?
 
You guys must stop with the fallacious arguments!

It does not necessarily follow that because the top 10 nations in the world have protectionist policies, that protectionist policies are therefore superior to a non-protectionist policy.

And you guys need to stop making statements that are, quite evidently, false.

Obviously there is more at work here, and that having a protectionist trade policy does not, of itself, mean that you destroy an economy.

Otherwise Switzerland, Germany, China and Japan, as examples, would resemble North Korea.
 
Back
Top