Rationale on voting for the Free Trade agreements? [Archive]

Brett85

10-13-2011, 04:16 PM

In the Fox news interview, Rand said that free trade agreements help to lower the cost of goods here in the United States. Regarding the debate over "managed" trade deals, I imagine Rand thinks that these trade deals still make the trade more free than it was before, even though the trade deals are far from ideal. The trade deals all dramatically lower or completely eliminate tariffs with these countries, and that's very important.

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 07:42 PM

They are a violation of US sovereignty.

Ouch.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:16 PM

They are a violation of US sovereignty.

Ouch.

In what way? Bilateral trade agreements don't force us to be a member of the WTO.

Anti Federalist

10-13-2011, 08:27 PM

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:29 PM

disappointed in Rand for this.

this is not even good politically.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:30 PM

Signed off on Iran letter written by Chucky Schumer.

Waffled on his Dad's position on al-Awaki killing.

Votes for another sovereignty killing, de-industrializing trade agreement with a foreign power.

Third fucking strike yet?

Duly noted and filed away.

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:32 PM

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

highly regulated trade =/= free trade

it continues to amaze me how some people can't get such a simple thing

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:33 PM

Also, I guess people also disagree with Justin Amash's support for these trade deals along with the Cato Institute, Reason, and every other respected libertarian organization.

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:34 PM

Also, I guess people also disagree with Justin Amash's support for these trade deals along with the Cato Institute, Reason, and every other respected libertarian organization.

lol. Reason and CATO aren't "respected libertarian organizations", unless you think supporting and defending the Federal Reserve for decades is libertarian. you're confusing statism with libertarianism.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:35 PM

highly regulated trade =/= free trade

it continues to amaze me how some people can't get such a simple thing

Voting against trade deals which dramatically lower or eliminate tariffs is a vote in favor of protectionism. These trade deals make the trade far more free than it was before. Unregulated free trade isn't something that's ever going to pass Congress. The result of pushing for "unregulated free trade" simply means that we have much higher tariffs with our friends around the world.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:38 PM

lol. Reason and CATO aren't "respected libertarian organizations", unless you think supporting and defending the Federal Reserve for decades is libertarian. you're confusing statism with libertarianism.

So those are "statist" organizations, huh? Good grief. This is the kind of stuff that really does a lot of damage to Ron's campaign.

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:39 PM

Voting against trade deals which dramatically lower or eliminate tariffs is a vote in favor of protectionism. These trade deals make the trade far more free than it was before. Unregulated free trade isn't something that's ever going to pass Congress. The result of pushing for "unregulated free trade" simply means that we have much higher tariffs with our friends around the world.

that's like supporting creating the income tax if it would lower overall taxes. it's stupid because you're giving up principles and creating an environment which results in higher taxes in the long run.

similarly, when you approve an environment in which the government regulates trade under the pretense that it will make trade slightly freer, you're giving up your principles and accepting government high regulation of trade in the long run. worst of all, you call that free trade. it's not just ineffective and counterproductive, it's also dishonest.

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:42 PM

So those are "statist" organizations, huh? Good grief. This is the kind of stuff that really does a lot of damage to Ron's campaign.

those manage trade agreements are statist. Reason and CATO aren't "respected" libertarian organizations, at least not to anyone who considers the federal reserve an important issue and values consistency over a long period of time.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:42 PM

that's like supporting creating the income tax if it would lower overall taxes. it's stupid because you're giving up principles and creating an environment which results in higher taxes in the long run.

similarly, when you approve an environment in which the government regulates trade under the pretense that it will make trade slightly freer, you're giving up your principles and accepting government high regulation of trade in the long run. worst of all, you call that free trade. it's not ineffective and counterproductive, it's also dishonest.

If you were a member of Congress, how exactly would you succeed in getting Congress to go along with having unregulated free trade? You would just wave your magic wand and make that happen? Because your votes against these trade deals would simply succeed in keeping tariffs high, nothing else. I'll take regulated trade with low tariffs over regulated trade with high tariffs. That's the only two options that Rand has to vote on.

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 08:45 PM

In what way? Bilateral trade agreements don't force us to be a member of the WTO.

Oppose the South Korea Free Trade Agreement

Dear Colleague:

Free trade theorists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo must be rolling in their graves to see pacts like President Obama’s Korea Agreement called “free trade.” Like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pact, written by unelected trade bureaucrats, spans 1,000 pages.

It includes endless pages of rules and regulations enforced by foreign tribunals. This act is a sneaky form of international preemption, undermining the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of many rights to the people or state governments.

And, President Obama’s Korea Agreement sets up foreign tribunals to which the United States mst submit for judgment. Foreign investors are allowed to skirt the U.S. court system to directly ue the U.S. government for trade pact violations before UN and World Bank tribunals. Those provisions enable demands by such forms for compensation in U.S. taxpayer funds for violations of the special foreign investor privileges the pact provides. There are nearly 80 Korean firms with more than 200 establishments set up in this country now that would acquire these new rights to raid our Treasury using foreign tribunals.

We urge you to oppose President Obama’s Korea Agreement.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul Walter B Jones

//

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:45 PM

If you were a member of Congress, how exactly would you succeed in getting Congress to go along with having unregulated free trade? You would just wave your magic wand and make that happen? Because your votes against these trade deals would simply succeed in keeping tariffs high, nothing else. I'll take regulated trade with low tariffs over regulated trade with high tariffs. That's the only two options that Rand has to vote on.

i'd do what Ron Paul is doing. i'd explain why the so called free trade agreements are anything but. i wouldn't give up like you would.

low preference guy

10-13-2011, 08:46 PM

that people can call an agreement spanning more than 1000 pages "free trade" is laughable. not even orwell came up with that one. too crazy.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:49 PM

"And, President Obama’s Korea Agreement sets up foreign tribunals to which the United States mst submit for judgment. Foreign investors are allowed to skirt the U.S. court system to directly ue the U.S. government for trade pact violations before UN and World Bank tribunals. Those provisions enable demands by such forms for compensation in U.S. taxpayer funds for violations of the special foreign investor privileges the pact provides. There are nearly 80 Korean firms with more than 200 establishments set up in this country now that would acquire these new rights to raid our Treasury using foreign tribunals."

Thanks for posting that. My guess would be that Rand probably thinks that the low tariffs trump some of the bad parts of the deal. I think his reasoning is probably that he'll vote for a trade deal if it's 80% good and 20% bad, because it's still a net positive overall.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 08:52 PM

i'd do what Ron Paul is doing. i'd explain why the so called free trade agreements are anything but. i wouldn't give up like you would.

I respect your opinion on this issue, and Ron's as well. But I would think that this is an issue where there's room for disagreement within the liberty movement. I certainly don't think that Rand should be trashed simply for voting in favor of trade deals that lower tariffs. Rand, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee all voted for these deals. If we're going to say that Ron is the only true liberty candidate, the liberty movement won't have much of a future. Nobody is ever "pure" enough.

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 08:53 PM

I don't think this is just 20% bad: it's pretending the federal government can circumvent state rights and the Constitution by agreeing to do so with a foreign government. I think unConstitutional is unConstitutional, you don't just say 'well only part of it is unConstitutional....'

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 08:54 PM

I respect your opinion on this issue, and Ron's as well. But I would think that this is an issue where there's room for disagreement within the liberty movement. I certainly don't think that Rand should be trashed simply for voting in favor of trade deals that lower tariffs. Rand, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee all voted for these deals. If we're going to say that Ron is the only true liberty candidate, the liberty movement won't have much of a future. Nobody is ever "pure" enough.

They are currying favor with the Club for Growth, is what is happening, and that worries me.

specsaregood

10-13-2011, 08:54 PM

Thanks for posting that. My guess would be that Rand probably thinks that the low tariffs trump some of the bad parts of the deal. I think his reasoning is probably that he'll vote for a trade deal if it's 80% good and 20% bad, because it's still a net positive overall.

Problem is the 20% is really bad. Its like having genital warts and saying oh, well its only 5% of my body that has them, the other 95% is great!

I've defended Rand plenty, but he really loses me with this one.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:01 PM

They are currying favor with the Club for Growth, is what is happening, and that worries me.

You're right. Rand simply can't please everybody. By voting in favor of these agreements, he alienates a few of his supporters here. If he voted against the trade deals, he would get bashed by the club for growth and the Cato Institute. He would also be called an "isolationist" like Ron is called. I'm sure he doesn't want to have that label.

specsaregood

10-13-2011, 09:07 PM

You're right. Rand simply can't please everybody. By voting in favor of these agreements, he alienates a few of his supporters here. If he voted against the trade deals, he would get bashed by the club for growth and the Cato Institute. He would also be called an "isolationist" like Ron is called. I'm sure he doesn't want to have that label.

Of course the flipside is giving up being called the label: principled.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:11 PM

Of course the flipside is giving up being called the label: principled.

That's true, but there's such a thing as being too principled. Rand obviously isn't exactly like Ron. He's much more pragmatic, and it will most likely cause him to become a much bigger political star than Ron ever was. It might even cause him to become President someday. So it's just a different approach that Rand takes.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:11 PM

But really, everybody who has concerns about this should try to contact Rand's campaign office. Maybe they can explain why Rand feels differently on this issue than Ron does.

kuckfeynes

10-13-2011, 09:21 PM

If a 1000+ pages of regulations somehow ends up being a "net positive," I'll eat a copy of The Road to Serfdom.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:24 PM

If a 1000+ pages of regulations somehow ends up being a "net positive," I'll eat a copy of The Road to Serfdom.

Abolishing tariffs isn't a net positive?

Justinjj1

10-13-2011, 09:35 PM

Yeah, he might suck or waffle around on almost every single issue that the liberty movement cares about. But holy fuck, did you see him take a stand against those low-flow toilets?

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:37 PM

Yeah, he might suck on almost every single issue that the liberty movement cares about.

Then why is he listed as a liberty candidate on these forums?

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:45 PM

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 09:51 PM

That's true, but there's such a thing as being too principled. Rand obviously isn't exactly like Ron. He's much more pragmatic, and it will most likely cause him to become a much bigger political star than Ron ever was. It might even cause him to become President someday. So it's just a different approach that Rand takes.

A lot of people have been president. Obama is President. Bush was president, so was Nixon. Getting to be president isn't meaningful at some point.

I'm not going to tear into Rand because I don't know enough about this right now. I will look into it later. But I don't like it.

sailingaway

10-13-2011, 09:52 PM

Also, for all the Rand haters out there. Rand actually has a more independent voting record than Ron has.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412492_Rand_Paul-Votes with party 72% of the time.
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_Ronald_Paul-Votes with party 73% of the time.

It isn't a race to be different, the question is the template of principle and how closely you adhere to that.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 09:54 PM

I'm not going to tear into Rand because I don't know enough about this right now. I will look into it later. But I don't like it.

I don't like that Ron votes against free trade agreements, but I still support him. I guess it isn't really that big of an issue to me.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 10:00 PM

It seems like a lot of the people here are the kind of people who will vote against a state marijuana legalization iniative on the basis that the government shouldn't "regulate" marijuana. That's probably why that proposition lost in California. This seems to be a similar situation.

Anti Federalist

10-13-2011, 10:13 PM

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

Probably because I'm not a libertarian nor a free trader.

Brett85

10-13-2011, 10:14 PM

Probably because I'm not a libertarian nor a free trader.

Yeah, that's right. I remember that now. What is your political ideology?

Anti Federalist

10-13-2011, 10:15 PM

What is your political ideology?

Disgruntled asshole.

ETA - I'm being flippant, sorry.

I don't know what it is, I don't have a label that fits me.

I believe in maximum liberty for every individual.

I believe that just because something is a private enterprise that does not mean that it cannot tyrannize people.

I believe that corporate tyranny is as bad government tyranny.

I believe that a person, a community and a nation is stronger, more free and more independent when it does as much as it can for itself.

I believe that there are more important things out there than a paycheck or fat balance sheet.

I believe that a prosperous middle class is also vital to free nation.

I believe that the founders only mentioned one form of taxation, tariffs, specifically in the Constitution for a reason.

I believe that "free trade" when engaged in with, what are essentially, prison societies, is economic and national suicide.

I believe that, while it may be economically beneficial, a highly specialized "hive mind" community that this world is becoming, robs men of their souls.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

donnay

10-13-2011, 10:36 PM

The support for sanctions was bad, but this is very good. It continues to amaze me how libertarians can be against free trade.

It's not free trade for Americans, it's free trade for foreigners! Just like NAFTA, GATT and signing on to the WTO did more damage to our economy than people care to admit.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Agencies other than the Congress improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies which is unconstitutional.

Duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely on. Rand needs to educate himself a little better. I am rather disappointed in him, he is demonstrating, to me, he is no different then the rest of the crooks on the hill. His father is truly the exception, and Rand should know better, really.

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
~Thomas Jefferson

“I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment”
~George Washington

kuckfeynes

10-13-2011, 10:55 PM

Abolishing tariffs isn't a net positive?

Well that would take about one sentence. Maybe a paragraph if you're wordy.

So what is the rest of this stuff I am consenting to?

Anti Federalist

10-13-2011, 11:05 PM

Well that would take about one sentence. Maybe a paragraph if you're wordy.

So what is the rest of this stuff I am consenting to?

Devil, meet Details, Details, Devil.

Anti Federalist

10-13-2011, 11:06 PM

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/319229_2471184459696_1254904531_3015983_2047073451 _n.jpg

1836

10-14-2011, 01:37 AM

Also, I guess people also disagree with Justin Amash's support for these trade deals along with the Cato Institute, Reason, and every other respected libertarian organization.

I think it really depends on the trade agreement... some of these are really very much "managed trade" whereas others are much better, truer bilateral free trade agreements. CAFTA is a great example of a crappy managed trade agreement, for example, whereas NAFTA was only slightly better but still a pretty raw deal, and most bilateral agreements have been more or less positive. It depends.

Brett85

10-14-2011, 07:42 AM

I think it really depends on the trade agreement... some of these are really very much "managed trade" whereas others are much better, truer bilateral free trade agreements. CAFTA is a great example of a crappy managed trade agreement, for example, whereas NAFTA was only slightly better but still a pretty raw deal, and most bilateral agreements have been more or less positive. It depends.

I think Rand has said that he supports bilateral trade agreements, but not multi lateral agreements like Nafta and Cafta. There was also some kind of trade bill that he voted against along with three other Republicans.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00141

erowe1

10-14-2011, 07:56 AM

erowe1

10-14-2011, 08:17 AM

Just to bring up something obsolete...

For all those Ron Paul supporters who didn't support John Hostettler for US Senate from Indiana in 2010 because he wasn't pure enough, if voting against trade agreements is important to you, he consistently opposed them, and probably with greater zeal than just about any other Republican.

Anti Federalist

10-14-2011, 11:34 AM

Please don't answer with some big-picture platitude about sovereignty or a new world order. And please don't answer with anything about tariffs ever being good, or refer me to Pat Buchanan, or anyone else who thinks they can be.

LoL - "Hey you, prove it! But you can't cite anything I don't like in order to do so."

No thanks.

erowe1

10-14-2011, 11:45 AM

LoL - "Hey you, prove it! But you can't cite anything I don't like in order to do so."

No thanks.

So AF doesn't have an answer that meets those criteria.

Does anybody else?

Anti Federalist

10-14-2011, 12:28 PM

So AF doesn't have an answer that meets those criteria.

Does anybody else?

Nope, I got nothing.

"Free Trade" agreements, along with everything else we are doing, is just dandy.

Happy days are here again.

:rolleyes:

erowe1

10-14-2011, 01:05 PM

Nope, I got nothing.

"Free Trade" agreements, along with everything else we are doing, is just dandy.

Happy days are here again.

:rolleyes:

I haven't said anything one way or the other about them. But there's nothing wrong with being able to support your opinions with reasons.

Diurdi

10-14-2011, 01:10 PM

It all depends on how "Free Trade" The agreements actually are.

In essence however tariffs are poison while free trade is great. It's like the division of labour on a global level, increasing the overall efficiency for everyone.

And if anyone wonders, the Austrian School of Economics is pretty clear that free trade is good.

Feeding the Abscess

10-14-2011, 01:41 PM

Also, for all the Rand haters out there. Rand actually has a more independent voting record than Ron has.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412492_Rand_Paul-Votes with party 72% of the time.
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400311_Ronald_Paul-Votes with party 73% of the time.

Those include procedural votes, which are frequently voted on party lines. Another source puts Ron somewhere in the mid 50s. I'll try to find it for you.

1836

10-15-2011, 12:05 AM

Can anybody cite any of the specific bad things about this agreement?

Also, can anybody recommend a resource that gets into the details about why NAFTA and other trade agreements are bad.

Please don't answer with some big-picture platitude about sovereignty or a new world order. And please don't answer with anything about tariffs ever being good, or refer me to Pat Buchanan, or anyone else who thinks they can be.

Without going into too much detail, or doing any additional research, off the top of my head, one example comes from CAFTA.

CAFTA was partially built with the interests of the sugar industry in mind, because American sugar companies were extremely concerned about competition from foreign sugar producers. As a result, there are restrictions of some sort upon the sugar market explicitly due to the involvement of said companies.

You can look it up, but that was an enormous fight when CAFTA was coming down the pipeline. It is also a great example of how managed trade agreements often times include protectionist-type measures. That's the kind of thing that concerns me about an agreement like CAFTA.

Travis V

10-15-2011, 12:15 AM

I have to say I Like Rand, but I don't support these trade agreements. Jobs are going oversees.

Anti Federalist

10-15-2011, 06:24 PM

I haven't said anything one way or the other about them. But there's nothing wrong with being able to support your opinions with reasons.

I would have given you plenty of reasons, but you said, right out of the gate, that you had no desire to read any of them.

Brett85

10-15-2011, 06:31 PM

Without going into too much detail, or doing any additional research, off the top of my head, one example comes from CAFTA.

CAFTA was partially built with the interests of the sugar industry in mind, because American sugar companies were extremely concerned about competition from foreign sugar producers. As a result, there are restrictions of some sort upon the sugar market explicitly due to the involvement of said companies.

You can look it up, but that was an enormous fight when CAFTA was coming down the pipeline. It is also a great example of how managed trade agreements often times include protectionist-type measures. That's the kind of thing that concerns me about an agreement like CAFTA.

I'm pretty sure that Rand opposes multi lateral trade agreements like Cafta and Nafta. He was one of only four Republicans who voted against a bill that promoted a multi lateral trade agreement.