What happened to Young Americans for Liberty?

[Natural Citizen]

Can you provide an example of a mercantilist policy they've lobbied for?

Sure. I keep a running list for every time our mercantilist friends claim they've "debunked" something.

I'll offer this legislation to begin. Actually, they penned this one in order to protect themselves from the free market. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...abeling-laws&p=5480104&viewfull=1#post5480104

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Sure. I keep a running list for every time our mercantilist friends claim they've "debunked" something.

I'll offer this legislation to begin. Actually, they penned this one... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...abeling-laws&p=5480104&viewfull=1#post5480104

Mandatory labeling laws have no place in a free market.

Being opposed to them is not mercantilist, it's libertarian.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Mandatory labeling laws have no place in a free market.

Being opposed to them is not mercantilist, it's libertarian.

Agreed. I oppose mandatory labeling laws. But I also oppose protectionist laws. Especially when the very people seeking protection from the free market are the ones penning the protectionist legislation.

Penning legislation that specifically creates laws that are be enforceable at gunpoint in order to protect oneself (the author of the bill) from the free market IS mercantilist, though. Agreed?

Are you of the view that penning laws that thwart the free market is libertarian? I'm not. You do agree that in order for a true and genuine free market to function as a genuine free market should function, that consumers would have to have some kind of conscious choice in what they consume in order that they may guide the market and determine winners and losers. Yes? So, what that law does is that it removes...forever...the consumers' means to ever have any kind of means to make a conscious choice in what they consume. It also remives the means for the state to protect them from the over-reach of the federal government. AKA...the Kochs in this case given that they penned the bill and handed it off to one of their congressional goons.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Agreed.

Penning legislation that specifically creates laws that may be enforceable at gunpoint in order to protect oneself (the author of the bill) from the free market IS mercantilist, though. Agreed?

The legislation you cited would "prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods."

So...if you agree that mandatory labeling laws are unlibertarian, what's your complaint exactly?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The legislation you cited would "prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods."

So...if you agree that mandatory labeling laws are unlibertarian, what's your complaint exactly?

I just told you. Penning and legislating laws that are meant to specifically target and thwart the free market from being free is not libertarian. What the Kochs did here was a pen a law that specifically protects them from the free market.

You're excusing one tyranny for another.

Again, You do agree that in order for a true and genuine free market to function as a genuine free market should function, that consumers would have to have some kind of conscious choice in what they consume in order that they may guide the market and determine winners and losers. Yes? The Koch bill makes it an enforcable federal law that consumers cannot participate in a genuine free market and the states can't step in to stop this permanent over-reach of the federal government there.

I get that the labeling law isn't libertarian.

But neither is the Koch law. It's mercantilist. Protectionist. Is it not? You haven't yet answered. You asked me to provide examples of the fact that they are Mercantilist. So, that's what I'm trying to do here. Then I have some more we can move on to if you like.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I just told you. Penning and legislating laws that thwart the free market is not libertarian.

How is opposing mandatory labeling laws (which you agree are anti free market) thwarting the free market?

Again, You do agree that in order for a true and genuine free market to function as a genuine free market should function, that consumers would have to have some kind of conscious choice in what they consume in order that they may guide the market and determine winners and losers. Yes? The Koch bill makes it an enforcable law that consumers cannot participate in a genuine free market.

You agreed that mandatory labelling laws have no place in the free market, so WTH are you talking about?

I get that the labeling law isn't libertarian.

But neither is the Koch law. It's mercantilist. Protectionist. Is it not? You haven't yet answered.

???

If the state labeling law is unlibertarian, how the hell is a federal law PREVENTING IT unlibertarian?

...one could argue that it's unconstitutional, but that's a separate issue.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You're completely avoiding my answer to your own question here. Please don't do that.

I made a claim that the Kochs were Mercantilist. Did I not? You, then, asked me for specific lobby that supported my claim that the Kochs were Mercantilist. Did you not? I believe that I've specifically answered your question by providing confirmable support for my claim. In fact, I went beyond simple lobbying and presented actual legislation by their very pen. Have I not? And I've only yet provided one specific example. Now, we can discuss the constitutional aspect of it. I can do that. In fact, I'd like to do that. It's one of my favorite things to d, really.

But please acknowledge that I've provided for you a specific example of Mercantilist lobby from the Kochs as you had asked for me to do and we can move forward to the constitutional part of the discussion. if that is something that you would like to do.

Have I provided for you a legitimate example of mercantilist policy from the Kochs as you had asked? Yes or no? It's a very simple question. And a simple answer will suffice. Reframing mercantilism as if it is some kind of free market philosophy won't work. Nor will caricaturing the equally tyrannical labeling law to avoid acknowledging the Protectionist Koch law. Mercantilism is, as you know, exactly and precisely counterintuitive to the mechanics of a genuine free market. And ultimately counterintuitive to Individual liberty and sovereignty itself.

Thank You, rev.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I made a claim that the Kochs were Mercantilist. You asked me for specific lobby that supported my claim that the Kochs were Mercantilist. Did you not?

I did.

I believe that I've specifically answered your question by providing confirmable support for my claim. In fact, I went beyond simple lobbying and presented actual legislation by their very pen. Have I not?

No, you provided an example of the Kochs supporting a pro free market law.

There is nothing mercantlist about it.

Have I provided for you a legitimate example of mercantilist policy from the Kochs as you had asked? Yes or no?

No, as I've said multiple times, you provided an example of the Kochs supporting a pro free market law.

...i.e. the exact opposite of mercantilism.

Reframing mercantilism as if it is some kind of free market philosophy won't work. Protectionism is exactly and precisely counterintuitive to a genuine free market. And ultimately counterintuitive to Individual liberty itself.

???

Okay, maybe the problem here is when you said mercantilism, I thought you meant....well, mercantilism, by the usual definition of the words.

i.e. some government intervention in the economy for the benefit of a commercial interest group

Apparently that's not what you mean, so what do you mean by mercantilism?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Okay, maybe the problem here is when you said mercantilism, I thought you meant....well, mercantilism, by the usual definition of the words.

i.e. some government intervention in the economy for the benefit of a commercial interest group

Apparently that's not what you mean, so what do you mean by mercantilism?

What? It's precisely Mercantilism. And in no way whatsoever pro-free market. It is meant to protect the very people who penned it from the free market. You have a twisted view of what a free market is if you think this is pro-free market.

Essentially, this is a law that makes it enforceable by gunpoint that the consumer is...by law...Koch's law...not permitted the means to make an educated choice in what they consume. Consumers tren't of the means then, to decide winners and losers in the market. And not only that but the state can't even...again...by law...Koch's law...intervene in the federal over-reach. wtf!?

Last time I checked, Koch Network was a commercial interest group. Are they not? Did they not pen and introduce at the federal level legislation that protects them from the free market? They absolutely did. That's protectyionism 101. Mercantilism. And what's worse, is that you know it. Yet pawn it off as pro-free market. You just got done demonstrating that you know what mercantilkism is. Yet, you're closing your eyes when it's right in front of you staring you in the face. That's crazy, man.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What? It's precisely Mercantilism. And in no way whatsoever pro-free market. It is meant to protect the very people who penned it from the free market. You have a twisted view of what a free market is if you think this is pro-free market.

Essentually, this is a law that states tha tthe consumer is...by law...Koch's law...not permitted the means to make an educated choice in what they consume.

No, it's a law that prevents GOVERNMENT from INTERFERING in the free market by FORCING companies to label their products in a certain way.

You yourself agreed a few posts back that mandatory labeling is antithetical to the free market.

Mandatory labeling laws have no place in a free market.

Being opposed to them is not mercantilist, it's libertarian.

Agreed. I oppose mandatory labeling laws.

So...???

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Last time I checked, Koch Network was a commercial interest group. Are they not?

Certainly

Did they not pen and introduce at the federal level legislation that protects them from the free market? They absolutely did.

No, they absoilutely did not.

They penned and introduced federal legislation that would prevent state governments interfering in the free market by forcing business to label.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No, they absoilutely did not.

Yes they did.

They penned and introduced federal legislation that would prevent state governments interfering in the free market by forcing business to label.

I agree with you that this was part of it. I'm not denying that forced labeling at the hand of state government isn't interference with the fundamental principles of liberty. Certainly we don't want the state forcing anyone to do something at gunpoint. I agree with you there.

But we don't want the federal government over-riding state laws either. States are seperate federations for a reason. To protect their people from federal over-reach/tyranny.

At the same time, though, the Kochs are essentially doing the very same thing. They are absolutely protecting themselves from the free market by penning some crap like that and trying to make it a federal law to specifically overthrow states rights. Except under the illusion that their fighting aginst statists. If I can't, by federal law, and enforceable by gunpoint, make an educated decision on what to consume...which is exactly what their bill says... then, competition is out the window. And naturally, the free market as we know it as well. And they know it. That's some anarcho-cap crap, really. Freaking cartels.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I agree with you that this was part of it. I'm not denying that forced labeling at the hand of state government isn't interference with the fundamental principles of liberty. Certainly we don't want the state forcing anyone to do something at gunpoint. I agree with you there.

At the same time, though, the Kochs are essentially doing the very same thing.

So....opposing government intervention in the economy is essentially the same thing as supporting it?

They are absolutely protecting themselves from the free market

Since the free market does not consist in state governments forcing people to label things, no, they aren't.

They may be benefiting themselves and their business interests, but by promoting pro free market legislation.

...so what's wrong with that?

Abolishing the income tax would benefit me personally. Does that mean I'm a mercantilist by lobbying government to abolish the income tax?

If I can't, by federal law, make an educated decision on what to consume..which is wha ttheir bill does... then, competition is out the window.

See, that makes it sound like you are in favor of mandatory labeling laws.

...but you've said multiple times that you aren't.

So, I am at a total loss to make sense of what you're saying.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, see. I know what you're doing. You're trying to spin the idea that I'm for mandatory labeling in order to make me the topic and avoid the fact that your boys are equally forcing their protctionist policy on people at federal gunpoint. That's disingenuous. And once stupid memes start coming out, I don't see any reason to take discussion with you seriously about it. And I don't support mandatory labeling. Caricaturing doesn't justify what you're essentially ignoring here. Not even if you think it does. It doesn't.

I provided for you with what is patently mercantilist legislation that the Kochs penned and introduced into congress. Protectionism is patently counterintuitive to a genuine free market. Period. That legislation specifically protects them from the free market by removing, by federal gunpoint, the consumer's means to make an educated decision on what they consume. They are legislating away choice. This is precisely counterintuitive to how a genuine free market functions. Consumers decide who wins and loses by being able to make an educated choice on what they consume. The koch bill removes that ability. And it removes any states rights on top of it that ensure that the fed trumps the states. You're simply ignoring it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, see. I know what you're doing. You're trying to spin the idea that I'm for mandatory labeling in order to make me the topic and avoid the fact that your boys are equally forcing themselves on people at gunpoint. That's disingenuous.

You JUST SAID that the Koch's law preventing states from implementing mandatory labeling would make consumers unable to make educated decisions and eliminate competition. Call me crazy, but that sounds like you think mandatory labeling laws are good. What other possible interpretation could I have made of that statement?

As for the Kochs "forcing themselves on people at gunpoint," no, they're preventing state governments from doing that.

I provided for you what is patently mercantilist legislation that the Kochs penned and introduced into congress.

No, you provided an example of the Kochs supporting pro market legislation, which you have somehow confused with mercantilism.

That legislation specifically protects them from the free market by remving the consumer's means to make aneducated decision on what they consume.

It protects them from state governments who would otherwise implement unlibertarian, anti-free market labeling laws.

This is precisely counterintuitive to how a genuine free market functions

Businesses being able to choose how to label their products is exactly how a genuine free market works.

Consumers decide who wins and loses byu being able to make an educated choiuce on what they consume.

Again, this sounds like you're in favor labeling laws.

And it removes any states rights on top of it that ensure tht the fed trumps the states.

As far as it being unconstitutional, yes, it clearly is.

But there's nothing unlibertarian, mercantilist, or anti-free market about it - at all, as I've very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You're being intentionally disingenuous, rev. And now you're attacking the arguer and not the argument. You're making me the topic in order to avoid what I provided for you. It's deceptive to do that. You haven't, very clearly and repeatedly, demonstrated anything of the sort that the Koch legislation is pro-free market. All you've done is make a point against forced labeling. Which I agree with you about. But in doing so you've completely avoided the protectionist aspects of the Koch bill. Ignoring something doesn't, in any way, demonstrate anything at all other than the fact that you choose to ignore it.

Anyway. I've got pm going on at the moment. Later...

Btw. I want to ask you something. You've spent some time making claims about what I support and what I don't, but, I've not asked you of your philosophies. Are you an ancap, by chance? I don't really care if you are. I'm just curious.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You're being intentionally disingenuous, rev. And now you're attacking the arguer and not the argument. You're making me the topic in order to avoid what I provided for you. It's deceptive. The Koch law is absolutely mercantilist and anti-free market. You haven't, very clearly and repeatedly, demonstrated anything of the sort that it is. All you've done is make a point against forced labeling. Which I agree with you about. But in doing so you've completely avoided the protectionist aspects of the Koch bill. Ignoring something doesn't, in any way, demonstrate anything at all other than the fact that you choose to ignore it.

anyway. I';ve got pm going on at the moment. Later...

I've addressed and refuted all of your claims that the Koch's bill is protectionist.

Protectionism/Mercantilism means government interference in the economy for the benefit of some interest group.

The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.

They are lobbying AGAINST government interference in the economy.

...I don't know how to make that any clearer.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.

Yes they are.

They are lobbying AGAINST government interference in the economy.

They're privately penning federal legislation to kill states' rights.

They're privately penning federal legislation against state and local government and making it enforceable at gunpoint by way of the federal government for the specific purpose of protecting their personal business interests. Period.

This is a merge of corporation and state. Do you know what we call a merge of corporation and state? I'll tell you. Facism. But you know that. I know you do.

While I agree with you that we don't want the state forcing mandatory rules, nor do we want the fed enforcing mandatory provisions against state and local government tha tremove their rights. Free market aside.

...I don't know how to make that any clearer.

I just made it perfectly clear.

Anyway. I'm chatting in the pm. I'll check back with you later. And I do still want to go over the constitutional aspects of the discussion. I do enjoy discussing the constitution. It's usually more pleasant.

Hey, what about my question there in my previous post there at the end? Are you?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The Kochs are not lobbying for government interference in the economy.

Yes they are.

For what government intervention in the economy are they allegedly lobbying?

Hey, what about my question there in my previous post there at the end? Are you?

No, I'm not an ancap.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Mandatory labeling laws have no place in a free market.

Being opposed to them is not mercantilist, it's libertarian.

Don't we have a right to know what's in the food we buy? Ridiculous!