Import Tariffs are incompatable with Libertarianism

[The Rabbi]

Of course not. Do you want a billion people to emigrate to the United States? Free movement of capital doesn't affect my standard of living. Hoards of people moving into this country does.

A billion people would not move to the United States if we allowed free movement of labor.

What would stop them? There are a billion people in India who would move here at the drop of a hat if they were allowed to.

If half a billion people moved here what would happen?

 

[manifold]

Where on earth did you guys get the idea that libertarians are for tariffs or any other form of protectionism? They are for a minimalist gov't with the least amount of gov't intervention, and that includes free trade.

I see I need to start a thread on protectionism, followed by one on free trade. Not sure if many around here fully realize the negatives of the former and the positives of the latter.

I saw a self-proclaimed libertarian noob (Mr. Nick), blathering on about how we need to "tariff the shit" out of Chinese imports.

Just trying to set him and others of like mind straight on the subject. But I think he put me on ignore for calling him a naughty word so I guess his ignorance shall remain unabated.

But whatcha gonna do?

Self-proclaiming isn't good enough, John McCain has said he's a libertarian and he's the exact definition of a neocon.

Precisely.

 

[The Rabbi]

A large percentage of libertarians oppose open borders and support strict immigration controls. Supporting freedom for Americans does not require me to support allowing people from every other country in the world to move here.

Have you done a survey?

Liberty Magazine publishes a survery every year on what libertarian attitudes on various subjects are.

Even if true, that only means a large percentage of narco-libertarians are hypocrites, believing in freedom for themselves but not other people. But that's hardly news to those of us conservatives who have observed the narco-libs for some time now.

Narco libs? What could be more hypocritical than conservatives smoking away on their cancer sticks and sucking down billions of gallons of alcohol while they make war on people who choose different recreational weeds or chemicals?

Libertarians believe in Freedom for all people. However, they don't believe the U.S. government has any obligation to provide it for anyone who is not an American citizen.

Governments dont provide freedom.
We arent discussing conservatives. We are discussing narco libs and their hypocritical attitude towards immigration

 

[bripat9643]

What would stop them? There are a billion people in India who would move here at the drop of a hat if they were allowed to.

What would stop them? equilibrium wages and access to resources..

What "equilibrium?" You mean when mass immigration drove wages down here to the point where they were the same as wages in India, then they would stop immigrating? Yeah, that sure sounds like a desirable outcome.

Would we be better off if we didn't allow other forms of capital to accumulate in the United States?

No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources. Just look at the city you live in. Do you want to see 4 times more people living there? Four times as many cars? Four times as many freeways? Four times as many houses? Do you want four times as many people at the beach? Four times as many people at Yellowstone Park?

You have to be daft to support unlimited immigration.

 

[bripat9643]

Governments dont provide freedom.
We arent discussing conservatives. We are discussing narco libs and their hypocritical attitude towards immigration

ROFL! Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to discuss the hypocrisy of conservatives. No surprise there.

End of discussion. I don't participate in discussions with people who think they control the terms of the discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

If half a billion people moved here what would happen?

Read my other post on the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources. .

Dingdingding! We have a winner for the leftist-totalitarian view of humanity. The view that people are liabilities is the basis for most leftist thought, from over population to global warming to Obamacare.
It is dead wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

If half a billion people moved here what would happen?

Read my other post on the subject.

No, I want to hear your explanation.

 

[editec]

As though one can encapsulate an entire worldwide POV in one word.

I do not know why people keep thinking one can do it.

Doesn't matter whether they're self-pfoclaiming conservatives or liberals or Liabertarians, such method of thinking is bound to cause people to stop thinking.

Right, we should never try to define anything because consistency in understanding offers no value to communication.

Sometimes things stand, quite simply, in fundamental opposition. A person claiming to be libertarian while advocating tariffs is one such example. Might as well call yourself a libertarian and advocate a $20/hr minimum wage while you're at it.

Defginitions are fine as long as people agree what they mean.

As is so evident when it comes to political labels, that is clearly not the case.

So for anyone to tell self proclaiming libertarians what positions they OUGHT TO take regarding some policy is sort of silly.

If you want to talk about the benfits and costs of TARIFFS, do so. That would be a refreshing change for the teat-for-tat sophmoric nonsense that all too typically happens here

The point of this kind of thread is merely to provoke our fellow posters, rather than discuss the topic itself.

All liberals are this, all conservatives must think that; all libertarians must act this way or that?

What's the point of such simplictic blather if NOT to be a TROLL?

 

[8537]

What would stop them? There are a billion people in India who would move here at the drop of a hat if they were allowed to.

What would stop them? equilibrium wages and access to resources..

What "equilibrium?" You mean when mass immigration drove wages down here to the point where they were the same as wages in India, then they would stop immigrating? Yeah, that sure sounds like a desirable outcome.

No, that's not what i mean at all. Does a can of Coke cost the same in the US and China? Of course not.

Would we be better off if we didn't allow other forms of capital to accumulate in the United States?

No. People are not a "form of capital."

Yes, people are a form of capital.

They consume resources.

and what must they do to consume resources? Oh, right - produce labor. You may as well say "people work! we don't want people working."

 

[bripat9643]

No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources. .

Dingdingding! We have a winner for the leftist-totalitarian view of humanity. The view that people are liabilities is the basis for most leftist thought, from over population to global warming to Obamacare.
It is dead wrong.

So you believe that people do not consume resources?

The belief that there is no downside to an increased population has got to be the single dumbest premise of the conservative agenda. People consumer resources and create waste. There is a limit to how many people the land can support. This country has more than enough people. We gain nothing by importing additional mouths to feed.

 

[manifold]

As though one can encapsulate an entire worldwide POV in one word.

I do not know why people keep thinking one can do it.

Doesn't matter whether they're self-pfoclaiming conservatives or liberals or Liabertarians, such method of thinking is bound to cause people to stop thinking.

Right, we should never try to define anything because consistency in understanding offers no value to communication.

Sometimes things stand, quite simply, in fundamental opposition. A person claiming to be libertarian while advocating tariffs is one such example. Might as well call yourself a libertarian and advocate a $20/hr minimum wage while you're at it.

Defginitions are fine as long as people understand what they mean.

As is so evident when it comes to political labels, that is clearly not the case.

So for anyone to tell self proclaiming libertarians what positions they OUGHT TO take regarding some policy is sort of silly.

If you want to talk about the benfits and costs of TARIFFS, do so.

The point of this kind of thread is merely to provoke our fellow posters, rather than discuss the topic itself.

All liberals are this, all conservatives must think that; all libertarians must act this way or that?

What's the point of such simplictic blather if NOT to be a TROLL?

Read the thread. Amidst the trolling you'll see a few flashes of thoughtful discussion on the topic. These days that qualifies as a win. Even a crusty old curmudgeon like you ought to be able to see that.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources. .

Dingdingding! We have a winner for the leftist-totalitarian view of humanity. The view that people are liabilities is the basis for most leftist thought, from over population to global warming to Obamacare.
It is dead wrong.

So you believe that people do not consume resources?

The belief that there is no downside to an increased population has got to be the single dumbest premise of the conservative agenda. People consumer resources and create waste. There is a limit to how many people the land can support. This country has more than enough people. We gain nothing by importing additional mouths to feed.

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About the most discredited theory out there.
But congrats: You are in fact a raging statist. Like there was ever any doubt.

 

[bripat9643]

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About the most discredited theory out there.
But congrats: You are in fact a raging statist. Like there was ever any doubt.

Even if unlimited population growth is economically feasible, why would anyone want such a thing? The fact remains that there will be more people crowding our beaches and our national parks, more cars on the road, more waste fouling our streams and rivers, more houses crowding our cities.

What's good about any of that?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Limits to Growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About the most discredited theory out there.
But congrats: You are in fact a raging statist. Like there was ever any doubt.

Even if unlimited population growth is economically feasible, why would anyone want such a thing? The fact remains that there will be more people crowding our beaches and our national parks, more cars on the road, more waste fouling our streams and rivers, more houses crowding our cities.

What's good about any of that?

We have many more people in this country than we did 40 years ago. And we have more forest, cleaner water, and cleaner air as well as a higher standard of living.
Why would anyone want that??

 

[The Rabbi]

But I'm still waiting to hear what happens when half a billion people move here.

 

[bripat9643]

We have many more people in this country than we did 40 years ago. And we have more forest, cleaner water, and cleaner air as well as a higher standard of living.

Why would anyone want that??

We also have $4.00 gas. What do you think will happen to the price of gas when there are a billion people living here?

40 years ago we had no environmental regulations. Regulations are not going to stop people from going to the beach, driving on the freeway, crapping in the john, eating animals that give off waste, and consuming energy, food and other consumer goods. Additional people are not going to increase our reserves of oil, coal, national forest, national parks, beaches, farmland, etc, etc, etc.

 

[manifold]

Hey Ribeye,

I heard that 'Libertarians for Protectionism' is a companion organization to 'Jews for Jesus'.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have many more people in this country than we did 40 years ago. And we have more forest, cleaner water, and cleaner air as well as a higher standard of living.

Why would anyone want that??

We also have $4.00 gas. What do you think will happen to the price of gas when there are a billion people living here?

40 years ago we had no environmental regulations. Regulations are not going to stop people from going to the beach, driving on the freeway, crapping in the john, eating animals that give off waste, and consuming energy, food and other consumer goods. Additional people are not going to increase our reserves of oil, coal, national forest, national parks, beaches, farmland, etc, etc, etc.

We would have $4 gas regardless as gasoline is a worldwide commodity.
We had environmental regs 40 years ago.
Clean Air Act (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even reduce that to 35 years ago and what I said remains true.

We have more farmland than we did 35 years ago. We are only using a fraction of it anyway.
You continue to press this absurd notion that people are a liability.

Imagine in NY in 1870 you had 1.5M people there. Someone projecting into the future like you would ask, if we had 5 million more people here the place would go to hell. Just the horse shit from all those extra carriages would bury the city and make it unliveable.
People actually did make that claim.
What happened? New york has nearly 10 times as many people and the city is doing fine.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey Ribeye,

I heard that 'Libertarians for Protectionism' is a companion organization to 'Jews for Jesus'.

I also heard they are joining forces with the organization "Fucking for Virginity."