Import Tariffs are incompatable with Libertarianism

[Contumacious]

Notwithstanding the fact that if you asked ten different self-proclaimed libertarians what libertarians stand for, you'd get ten different answers, textbook Libertarianism strongly opposes all import tariffs.

Look it up.

And then have fun trying to reconcile this fact with your own, poorly manufactured idea of what it means to be a libertarian.

Who gives a shit, we are trying to run a nice fascist republic here. We are well on our way to fully implement the ideas suggested in the communist manifesto. Oh yeah babe.

But since you asked, the stupid Libertarian Party opposes tariffs. The idiots.



Abolish all trade barriers and agreementshttp://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Libertarian_Party_Free_Trade.htm

Subsidies, tariffs and quotas serve to give special treatment to special interests. These measures reduce the understanding among different peoples. We support abolition of trade barriers and government-sponsored export-promotion programs, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Court of International Trade. Concurrent shall be the complete withdrawal from all trade agreements including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000 .

.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh we can't have people driving cars now, can we. People in the 3rd world don't have cars.

IF they want to drive cars, let them do it in their own country. I can't think of a single good reason why I would prefer to have them driving their cars here rather than somewhere else, can you? Also, I see no reason why I should help them to get a car. That's their problem, not mine.

Are environmental regs, the ones that actually have an effect, more ubiquitous today than 30 years ago?
Here is data from LA. Note that air is cleaner today than it was in 1976. Even than in 1996 despite a huge rise in population.
Historic Ozone Air Quality Trends

Yes the land area of the US was exactly the same. That wasn't what I claimed. You either are too stupid to realize what I did write or you are intentionally obtuse.
I'll repeat it again in simple terms. We have more land for farms now than we did before.

You cling to a discredited and very leftist notion that people "cost" something to maintain. The truth is the opposite. People are a resource. And the next time you use Google thank immigrants from 3rd world countries who made it possible.

If you think the amount of land under cultivation can undergo some quantum leap in size, you're delusional. It can't. Most of the arable land is being farmed. Even if it could, would anyone find that desirable? I think most people like having s significant amount of land left in it's natural state.

I've already explained to you that the glass is 3/4 full. There is very little that additional regulations can do to curb pollution. Furthermore, air pollution isn't really my main concern. Consumption of resources and the pressure it puts on our ecosystem is the concern. More people eating fish means overfishing. More people eating beef means farmers are going to over utilize their land. More people driving cars means more highways, more traffic, and higher gasoline consumption which means more demand for oil and higher prices.

What is good about any of that? The bottom line is that you have failed to give one reason why anyone would want more people to live here. I have listed numerous reasons why you wouldn't. And your arguments against those reasons are pathetic.

Case closed.

 

[bripat9643]

Hey, here's a good site for bripat!

VHEMT

Let's just get rid of all that "wasteful" labour!

I only want imbecile turds like you to become extinct.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that people are "not a form of capital" is just silly. Capital is labour embodied in physical form. All capital is derived from labour. Capital just didn't magically appear on the earth.

Labor is not capital. Read book on economics, for once in your life.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat isn't a conservative when he toes the Leftist line that people are liabilities and not resources. He has a lot of learning to do.

Since I never said that, you're just making an ass of yourself.

Of course you did. You wrote:
No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources.

ROFL! Your belief that my statement means what you claim it means is to absurd for words.

That is as clear a statement that people are liabilities not resources as I've seen. If you don't understand this is what you said then you need help. Your entire argument has been that people consumer resources. You refuse to answer the question of what happens when half a billion people move here. Your continued predictions of disaster are nonsense. If you would answer the question that would become clear.

The term "liability" isn't one I used, and it doesn't apply in this case. Having an impact on the land and being a "liability" are two separate things. A coal mine obviously has an impact on the land, but accountants classify it as an asset.

You're only proving that you're a moron who doesn't understand the meaning of economic terms.

 

[bripat9643]

I would disagree. He is espousing very leftist environmentalist dogma. This is the stuff you hear from groups like The Earth Liberation Front.

And you're expressing the conservative idiocy that human numbers can increase without limit without any negative impact.

That's why some people justifiably believe that some conservatives are morons.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what I love about conservatives....it's all about "me, me, me"....

What is "all about me me me?" Certainly, everything I do is about me. Why should I give a crap about you?

Which is why guys like you are at the margins of society.

Please go and live somewhere where you make your own clothes, shelter and get your own food. And I mean grow your own cotten, skin your own leather etc, etc...let's see how you survive - oh and build your own car, refine your own oil..

..when are you gonna learn humans have to cooperate with each other to get things done...no person is an island - and if you are - off you go, then...

You go make your own clothes, shelter and grow your own food. Nothing I have said rules out cooperation. That's pure leftwing idiocy. But I only "cooperate" when it's in my best interest. I don't "cooperate" at gunpoint.

While you're on your dessert Island, you can provide your own medical care and pay for your own Social Security.

Then you can go fuck yourself.

 

[Toro]

The idea that people are "not a form of capital" is just silly. Capital is labour embodied in physical form. All capital is derived from labour. Capital just didn't magically appear on the earth.

Labor is not capital. Read book on economics, for once in your life.

I have a degree in economics. I read my first book on economics when I was 15 and have several shelves of economics books, most of which are libertarian and pro-free market.

Capital + labour = productive capacity.

Labour is an input to the productive process. Labour productivity is what labour produces less what it consumes. It is a positive number.

Fail.

 

[Toro]

I would disagree. He is espousing very leftist environmentalist dogma. This is the stuff you hear from groups like The Earth Liberation Front.

And you're expressing the conservative idiocy that human numbers can increase without limit without any negative impact.

That's why some people justifiably believe that some conservatives are morons.

That is wrong. Nobody argues that human population can increase without limit without any negative impact. The argument is that as long as productivity improves faster than population growth, then the world is a better place, no matter how many people are on the earth. And productivity growth is bound only by the restrictions of the human mind, nothing more.

Your argument was made over 200 years ago, just when mankind was about to embark on the greatest increase in wealth in the history of the world.

In 1798, a 32 year-old British economist anonymously published a lengthy pamphlet criticizing the views of the Utopians who believed that life could and would definitely improve for humans on earth. The hastily written text, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers, was published by Thomas Robert Malthus. ...

Thomas Malthus argued that because of the natural human urge to reproduce human population increases geometrically (1, 2, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc.). However, food supply, at most, can only increase arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.). Therefore, since food is an essential component to human life, population growth in any area or on the planet, if unchecked, would lead to starvation. However, Malthus also argued that there are preventative checks and positive checks on population that slow its growth and keep the population from rising exponentially for too long, but still, poverty is inescapable and will continue.

Thomas Malthus - About Thomas Malthus on Population

 

[Cuyo]

The idea that people are "not a form of capital" is just silly. Capital is labour embodied in physical form. All capital is derived from labour. Capital just didn't magically appear on the earth.

Labor is not capital. Read book on economics, for once in your life.

Yeah Toro... God you're so stoooooopid... You should try to learn something from "Bripat."

 

[The Rabbi]

Since I never said that, you're just making an ass of yourself.

Of course you did. You wrote:
No. People are not a "form of capital." They consume resources.

ROFL! Your belief that my statement means what you claim it means is to absurd for words.

That is as clear a statement that people are liabilities not resources as I've seen. If you don't understand this is what you said then you need help. Your entire argument has been that people consumer resources. You refuse to answer the question of what happens when half a billion people move here. Your continued predictions of disaster are nonsense. If you would answer the question that would become clear.

The term "liability" isn't one I used, and it doesn't apply in this case. Having an impact on the land and being a "liability" are two separate things. A coal mine obviously has an impact on the land, but accountants classify it as an asset.

You're only proving that you're a moron who doesn't understand the meaning of economic terms.

Sonny, if you think more people are a negative then you think people are a liability. This is just by definition. I cannot help it if you do not understand what you believe. BUt you have two fairly well informed posters here who understand it well.
Who is talking about coal mines? Where did that nonsense come from?
Labor is human capital. The knowledge and skills that people bring with them constitutes capital.

You are making statements that contradict your own arguments. I wonder if you have any understanding of what you write at all.