Import Tariffs are incompatable with Libertarianism

[Mr.Nick]

Tariffs are compatible with libertarianism.

Libertarians believe in the Tenth Amendment...

Libertarians have a problem with the federal government, overstepping its powers - not with states using their Tenth Amendment, just as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how a tariff violates the Bill of Rights.

 

[bripat9643]

We would have $4 gas regardless as gasoline is a worldwide commodity.

That's wrong. Now, the majority of those billion people you want to immigrate here are not driving cars or consuming petroleum. If hey moved here, then they would all want a car and would all start consuming petroleum. that would put immense pressure on the price of oil.

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.

Please, Nixon created the EPA. You're comparing a situation with no environmental regulations to a situation where environmental regulations are not only ubiquitous but even oppressive. If you hold the regulations constant, then more people means more pollution. There's no arguing with the fact that it means greater consumption of resources.

We have more farmland than we did 35 years ago. We are only using a fraction of it anyway.

the last time I checked, the land area of the United States was exactly the same.

You continue to press this absurd notion that people are a liability.

"Liability" is your term, not mine. People consume resources, take up space and give off waste. That fact is undeniable. You have to be a damn fool to believe more of that is a good thing. How would additional people benefit me? The answer is: they wouldn't. That's all I need to know.

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.

That's like comparing a glass with 1/32 of an inch of water to a glass with one inch of water. The glass is now 3/4 full.

 

[bripat9643]

Tariffs are compatible with libertarianism.

Libertarians believe in the Tenth Amendment...

Libertarians have a problem with the federal government, overstepping its powers - not with states using their Tenth Amendment, just as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how a tariff violates the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution bars states from imposing their own tariffs.

Whoever said tariffs are incompatible with the BOR? However, that document isn't the sum total of freedom. Libertarians believe in freedom, especially the freedom to trade with whomever you want on whatever terms you want. Tariffs are incompatible with that principle.

 

[The Rabbi]

We would have $4 gas regardless as gasoline is a worldwide commodity.

That's wrong. Now, the majority of those billion people you want to immigrate here are not driving cars or consuming petroleum. If hey moved here, then they would all want a car and would all start consuming petroleum. that would put immense pressure on the price of oil.

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.

Please, Nixon created the EPA. You're comparing a situation with no environmental regulations to a situation where environmental regulations are not only ubiquitous but even oppressive. If you hold the regulations constant, then more people means more pollution. There's no arguing with the fact that it means greater consumption of resources.



the last time I checked, the land area of the United States was exactly the same.

You continue to press this absurd notion that people are a liability.

"Liability" is your term, not mine. People consume resources, take up space and give off waste. That fact is undeniable. You have to be a damn fool to believe more of that is a good thing. How would additional people benefit me? The answer is: they wouldn't. That's all I need to know.

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.

That's like comparing a glass with 1/32 of an inch of water to a glass with one inch of water. The glass is now 3/4 full.

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

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
"Liability" is your term, not mine. People consume resources, take up space and give off waste. That fact is undeniable. You have to be a damn fool to believe more of that is a good thing. How would additional people benefit me? The answer is: they wouldn't. That's all I need to know..

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

 

[The Rabbi]

[
"Liability" is your term, not mine. People consume resources, take up space and give off waste. That fact is undeniable. You have to be a damn fool to believe more of that is a good thing. How would additional people benefit me? The answer is: they wouldn't. That's all I need to know..

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

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
"Liability" is your term, not mine. People consume resources, take up space and give off waste. That fact is undeniable. You have to be a damn fool to believe more of that is a good thing. How would additional people benefit me? The answer is: they wouldn't. That's all I need to know..

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

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.

On the contrary, he is expousing a conservative mantra (in my experience).....

 

[editec]

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.

Where to begin with the above?

Look it up where?

Who has the authority to define the meaning of the term for other Libertarians?

Stop and think what the root of the term LIBERTarian is.

What you're doing rather reminds me of an ironic button that was popular in the 60s. It read:

ANARCHISTS UNITE!​

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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.

On the contrary, he is expousing a conservative mantra (in my experience).....

Then your experience must mirror RDean's, who never met a Republican.
Because classical liberalism sees people as resources. Thus the basic principle of free movement of labor and capital is a conservative cause. Labor is an asset as much as capital.

 

[Toro]

edit - I misread.

Sorry.

 

[bripat9643]

Tariffs are compatible with libertarianism.

Libertarians believe in the Tenth Amendment...

Libertarians have a problem with the federal government, overstepping its powers - not with states using their Tenth Amendment, just as long as they don't violate the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how a tariff violates the Bill of Rights.

It doesn't violate the Bill of Rights, but it does violate other clauses in the Constitution that reserve the authority to impose tariffs to the federal government.

 

[Toro]

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.

Now THAT is a very leftist argument. You hear the same thing from environmentalists. It's very Malthusian.

Of course people are not net consumers of resources. Any Econ 101 student knows that. If it were true, than labour productivity would be negative and capital productivity would be greater than total factor productivity. This, of course, is completely wrong.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Toro]

Tariffs are compatible with libertarianism.

rofl

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

 

[Toro]

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

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.

On the contrary, he is expousing a conservative mantra (in my experience).....

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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Toro]

Hey, here's a good site for bripat!

VHEMT

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