You claimed "Any tariff on imports only, no matter how evenly distributed, are protectionist". That is 100% unadulterated pure bullshit. Every person you mentioned and every single libertarian Nobel Prize winning economist would disagree with you. No economist on earth would ever say that a flat 3% tariff is even the slighest bit protectionist.
There is no way that anyone can legitimately claim that a voluntary choice of bringing goods into America while knowing a tariff is associated with tariffs, when they could just as easily avoid the tariff by selling domestic goods is an initiation of force. I've never said that tariffs can't be harmful, but if they are low enough as to not be protectionist (3% is not protectionist by any stretch of the imagination) they are not harmful. --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've joined, and I believe that so would such great Libertarian thinkers as Frederic Bastiat, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and so on. But of course, we have someone here is smarter than everyone else and must "educate" us in the proper application of Libertarianism. > > Any tariff on imports only, no matter how evenly distributed, are protectionist. It compels those who buy domestic merchandise to pay higher prices than they would if they bought them abroad. There is no way Paul can claim that there is no initiation of force involved here, even though the Constitution granted the government the power to implement tariffs, that was an initiation of force cemented in the formation of our government. Paul's argument about markets is collectivist in nature - the buyer and seller do not have control of their market; their property is subject to the rules laid out by the Federal government, weak though the rules might be. > > I do, however, believe that he is correct that a low, evenly distributed tariff isn't a bad way to fund the government as long as it's capped and can't be applied selectively to different industries, countries of origin or specific manufacturers. From 1783 to 1807 and 1846 to 1860 we had no or low taxes, low tariffs, and hard currency and the country prospered naturally (rather than as a result of pent up demand that comes after a major war) more than during any other period. > > So, he's correct that tariffs can be good, but he's wrong that they aren't an initiation of force, and he's wrong that they aren't harmful. They just aren't "too harmful" compared to most other ways we'd fund government (other than by voluntary donations.) > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: uncoolrabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Forget his metaphors Boyd and join with me in asking > > > > "How, in a Libertarian Society, is it not an initiation of force > > to mandate a seller to charge, and a buyer to pay, to the goverment, > > a Tax on the sale of those goods?" > > OK. Consider me joined. > > Anybody else wish to ask the question? > > BWS > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Libertarian English language Political parties Online dictionary American politics > > --------------------------------- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
