Is it beneficial to have free trade between LA county and Orange County, or would one or both counties be made better off if I built a tariff collecting apparatus between the two?
How about I exact a tariff from the guy you buy your clothes from? Will you be made better off because you may have incentive to take up knitting?
Lol. Currency and labor mobility are irrelevant to trade issues?
How about you actually read the thread? Then you’d know my answer to this question.
Well, since that poster wasn’t talking about intra-national trade, but rather international trade, I guess you just decided to post something irrelevant.
All things being equal, free trade will always bring greater wealth to both parties to a voluntary transaction. Inserting yourself as a middle man between two adults conducting business is a) rude and b) wealth destroying.
Nah, I’ll respond to those that responded to me, though. As I said, I have as much intellectual respect for protectionists as I do for New Earth creationists.
Oh, and here we get the theoretical argument that I laid out in my very first post in the thread. I know full well what this argument is. We’ve already discussed the theoretical argument numerous times in this thread. It’s telling that none of you can move past this theoretical argument, but instead just keep repeating it over and over (even though I already laid it out).
Well, since I’m not a protectionist, I think it’s pretty clear you didn’t actually read the thread.
Well I’ve surveyed your posts. You claim not to be protectionist, but you are doing nothing but making standard arguments against free trade. Anywho…
Your big thing is that the other countries are not passing laws that would hurt their economies and further impoverish their already poor citizenry. From this, you make no policy suggestions, but I assume you don’t want us to be allowed to engage in free trade with people in the other countries. I’m not sure how to proceed from here.
So I will state simply, the United States, and every other country, should unilaterally abolish all barriers to trade. If you don’t like this, state why that is so.
Lol.
Nope, and I have no idea where you got this. This is just stuff you made up.
More making stuff up. I’ve made policy suggestions in this thread. Now, I’m willing to explain in detail where I’m coming from, but I’m not going to be lectured by people who don’t really understand what they’re talking about. So, if you’re seriously interested in examining these issues, I’ll do it, but if you’re just going to throw Econ 101 models at me (which I’ve already dealt with in this thread), I’m not going to bother.
Well, I don’t know what this means. Most people would say that’s just tariffs. If I understand adaher’s position correctly, he would include things like subsidies. As pointed out earlier in the thread by another poster, the term “free trade” is fuzzy. So unless you want to jump off the theoretical models and start grinding down into the specifics, then this is just spouting pablum.
Trading with a slave-holding nation makes the likelihood that the country will remain a slaveholding nation decrease. It also increases the prosperity of the free nation, including those on the margins.
Not trading with a slaveholding nation makes the likelihood that the country will remain a slaveholding nation increase. It also decreases the prosperity of the free nation, including those on the margins.
Intellectual property is not a legitimate form of property.
Wherever the government inserts itself into a voluntary transaction, they should stop doing this.
Are you approaching things from a libertarian framework? Because I can adjust my responses to you in a more appropriate fashion if that’s what you’re doing.
Sure am.
Ok, well, I’ve got to go to bed (wake up early tomorrow), but I’ll tackle these last two posts of yours with that in mind in the next few days.
Before I get out of here… I don’t agree with this view, and I can make economics and utilitarian arguments against this view all day long, but…
I agree this is the proper view from a libertarian framework.
You are the first libertarian I’ve ever seen on these boards to actually hold this view. So, I’m going to have to adjust my arguments a bit.
Ok, here we go. For the rest of this post, I am using the term “slavery” to mean an involuntary system. I’m not talking about systems which may have voluntary components (such as a negotiated indentured servant system).
What you’ve done here is propose an economic model. Great. Economists do this all the time. But this isn’t any kind of statement of fact. In order for me to believe this model, you are going to have to do a systematic analysis and crunch numbers. Because I look at the world as it currently exists and (a) we’ve had steadily decreasing barriers to trade while (b) we’re still getting slavery. So, I’ve already got some data (not a lot) that contradicts your model. You produce data that shows that your model is generally true, and then we can start trying to figure out why this model doesn’t seem to be working in the data I’m looking at. I’m not going to take this assertion of yours as true without you doing all of that analysis.
Slavery is property theft. And under a libertarian framework, I’m allowed to ban property theft. I’m also allowed to punish property thieves (fines, prison, etc.). So, if I were to pass a law banning slavery, you should be okay with that. And if I were to pass a law fining slavers for their property theft, you should be okay with that too.
But I don’t have the power to pass laws in other countries. However, I do have the ability to fine them. I can say that if someone is making goods using slave labor, I’m going to fine them by slapping a tariff on their goods. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with libertarian principles. After all, I’m allowed to fine slavers domestically, and according to you, there isn’t a difference between domestic and international trading. If you really believe the two are the same, then what difference does it make how I apply the fine?
You feel that trade barriers violate libertarian principles. But slavery violates libertarian principles. So, why are you okay with allowing slavery temporarily but you aren’t okay with allowing trade barriers temporarily to stop slavery? If I have to rank violations of libertarian principles, I’d rank slavery as being far, far worse than a trade barrier. But you are proposing a model where we tolerate a much worse violation (slavery) for a while in order to immediately stop a less worse violation (trade barriers) immediately. Why should I agree to that?
You say this: “Wherever the government inserts itself into a voluntary transaction, they should stop doing this.” Slavery is not a voluntary transaction. And yet your analysis telling me what to do about slavery completely ignores this fact.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m the one who’s operating within a libertarian framework with regards to slavery, not you.
EDIT: PS - I’m not a libertarian, though.
There is a place for both mechanisms. However, without understanding the pros and cons of each (I’m not saying you don’t) it’s hard to make a rational case for what specifics to implement.
All he’s saying is that if states could levy tariffs on each other the growth of the wealth of the US would have been retarded. That’s hard to dispute and separate from international tariffs.
How is that fair without complete labor mobility with equivalent privileges to citizens of a nation?