Last edited by low preference guy; 11-10-2010 at 07:05 PM.
A nation as heavily armed (2nd amendment) as the United States is, can never be invaded and occupied. And being a peaceful trading nation requires much less defense than you might think. If the 2nd amendment was wholly respected, hell, if I was wealthy enough, I could own a tank myself.
The free market would both liquidate poor protection and defense insurers and raise up the best in the industry by profit rewarding. And they would have to follow all the laws that the people have to, or be subject to both the laws of the market as well as the law itself - no government guarantee or bailout of evil..
The people would have self checking control over their protection services.
I am only skimming over the idea that Hans Hoppe has defined in a much more robust way. The market works, we had best put it to full use.
Early fire departments in North America were formed as a result of insurance companies competitively trying to lower their premiums. Much of the early technology was funded in development by insurance companies.
POSITIVIST ALERT!Originally Posted by johnwk
Also, the constitution advocated and recognized the legality of slavery. Should we make slavery legal again?
You don't advocate any higher justice, morality, nor even sound economic reasoning. You don't advocate for maximizing liberty - You purely hold up the written law of specially interested men and positivistic dogma. You consistently resort to logical fallacies because you have no truly logical argument to stand on.
"If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power." - Ozarkia
"Big Brother is watching. So are we." - WikiLeaks
Laissez-nous faire, laissez-nous passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
In other words the both of you have nothing more to offer but an ideology or a whimsical fantasy to be more accurate, and you would like it to be accepted and practiced by the people of the united States, but neither of you are able to express a way to implement it. I too have a whimsical fantasy and Rodney King stated it very well…why can’t we all just get along. When the two of you dream up a way to implement your fantasy to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united States, please feel free to post it. Seems, however, the two of you are all wind and no sail.
Last edited by johnwk; 11-10-2010 at 09:25 PM.
"Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." — Benjamin Franklin
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
I was a minarchist, but I ran out of excuses.
Correlation does not equal casuation, ad hoc ergo propter hoc, need I go on? I already addressed this---the US would have been wealthier without tariffs as it would allow the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital to go through its phases to properly allocate resources in the most efficient way. Advocating for tariffs is to advocate hindering the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital, which means a lower living standard.[b][I]The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers trade policies, which included tariffs at our water’s edge, were designed to encourage America’s domestic manufactures and did in fact pave the way for America to becoming the economic marvel of the world.
It's not an accusation, it's the truth; you're citing the US Constitution as a means of holding up your argument; I was not--I was talking purely in the context of what would be a good way of funding government, nothing more, nothing less.Another stupid debating trick___ ignore what is written and make a silly accusation. I support representation with proportional obligation, which progressives hate with a passion. If the people of my state contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury, at the very least I want representation in Congress proportionately equal to my contribution. No appeal to authority here my friend, rather it is sound reasoning based upon principle.
to argue that this is a "bad" thing on the grounds of the US Constitution is to make a giant appeal to authority fallacy.
the empirical facts are on my side; Smoot-Hawley cut both imports and exports by 50%...any tariff will do the same, but by a different margin...heck, tariffs can even lead to wars (see Abraham Lincoln's tariff policy).Well, isn’t that special? Simply make stuff up to suit your cause.
what you're referring to is a strawman, and that's not what I engaged in; I engaged in reductio ad absurdum reducing your argument to the point of absurdity.Another stupid and adolescent debating trick___ exaggerate your opponents position and then argue against the argument you created. The fact is, the market place determines the limit of taxes on articles of consumption, just as Hamilton pointed out.
You're proposing protectionists policies are beneficial to the United States in that they protect "infant industries" and "encourage manufacturing" here in the States; therefore, I merely took your logic to its full conclusion---if erecting a tariff to encourage production in the US is "healthy" or"good", then by your line of thinking an out and out embargo on everything would be even better, as it would force all manufacturing to be done in the United States, along with everything else. It would, true, but it's as the expense of our standard of living, meaning our standard of living would decline horrendously.
What did you do, go out and type "debunking smoot-hawley" and pick the first semi-lengthy and technical article you found? The website is entirely from a demand-sider and Keynesian perspective, so instantly, it should be called into question. The article in question attempts to quantify based purely on the percentage of imports and GNP, but fails to take into account the amount of economic damage it caused by forcing "in-house" production of a number of products...in those cases, the product will be more expensive, which is a tax on the consumer...those numbers aren't taken into consideration (nor would they be easy to calculate). It also fails to mention the impact it had on the stock market (it plunged after it was passed), which, again, is a tax on individuals(in thiscase).You stated, One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster Your comment becomes another great exaggeration when one looks at the facts and statistical evidence. What you offered contains no statistical evidence just blather. Now, here is the Smoot-Hawley myth exposed Be sure to check out the statistical evidence and dates which are very important in exposing your myth.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff only slightly worsened the depression, which was already gaining considerable momentum.
If you want a good book on the Great Depression, I recommend America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/Rothbard/AGD.pdf
I researched this many years ago myself while doing a research paper at the University of Maryland and although the tariff had a negative influence, your comment exaggerates beyond reason the effects of the tariff. You really ought not exaggerate, it weakens your credibility.
You are really beginning to bore me with your self-centered attitude and sophomoric analogies.
No. I did not type “debunking smoot-Hawley”. I always do my own research before making the kind of broad brush assertions you make. I studied the congressional debates on this issue, I check the World Almanac for statistical evidence, and I carefully noted time-date timelines. The end result was, The Smoot-Hawley Tariff only slightly worsened the depression, which was already gaining considerable momentum
The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.