RFK Jr. Champions Economic Populism: Protect American Workers with Tariffs

[Anti Federalist]

RFK Jr. Champions Economic Populism: Protect American Workers with Tariffs

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rkers-tariffs/

JOHN BINDER 24 May 2023

Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is championing a populist-nationalist approach to the United States economy, vowing to impose tariffs on foreign imports to protect American workers and industries from unfair trade competition.

In a series of Twitter posts, Kennedy detailed the nation’s growing wealth inequalities whereby the very top earners — many of which are billionaires — have seen their share of income grow exponentially while the share of income among working- and middle-class Americans has steadily declined.

The breakdown of unions — in part, as a result of decades-long job-killing free trade policies — has coincided with growing income inequalities, Kennedy noted.

“The top share of income going to the top 10% has increased from 35% in 1945 to more than 45% today. Union membership has declined in the same period from 33% to about 10% — its lowest level since the 1930s,” he wrote on Twitter:

From the end of WWII through the 1980s, income distribution stayed relatively constant. But union membership began declining, and the share of income going to the bottom 90% followed it. Capitalism only functions equitably if workers have the collective bargaining power of unions, so they can claim a fair share of the economic pie. [Emphasis added]

In terms of countering the decline of working- and middle-class income growth, Kennedy said the U.S. ought to impose tariffs on foreign imports to protect its workforce and domestic industries from widespread offshoring of American jobs at the hands of multinational corporations.

“As President, I will protect American labor AND American industry,” Kennedy wrote on Twitter. “One thing I will consider: tariffs on imports from countries that allow exploitation of workers. American industries should not be forced to offshore to low-wage areas as nations compete with each other to sacrifice wages and working conditions in a ‘race to the bottom.'”

While free trade and trade deficits have eliminated millions of American jobs, devastating working- and middle-class communities, tariffs would likely drive up domestic production, increase wages, and reshore jobs to the U.S., research has shown.

A recent study from economists at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, for instance, finds that tariffs on nearly all foreign imports would create about ten million American jobs while boosting domestic output.

As Kennedy mentioned, middle-class wealth has dropped to a historic low.

The middle class, as of 2021, includes 77.5 million U.S. households with an annual income of $27,000 to $141,000. In October 2021, Breitbart News reported the top one percent of income earners in the U.S. now hold more wealth than the entire American middle class.

Specifically, the middle class has seen its share of national wealth plummet to just 26.6 percent while the top one percent’s share of wealth has grown to 27 percent — the first time in U.S. history that the top one percent’s share of wealth has outpaced the middle class’s share of wealth.

[Anti Federalist]

I'll admit Kennedy now has my attention...I'm listening.

But so far he only sees one half of the problem.

He is still in favor of the massive regulatory state.

[unknown]

Right, and hes a Dem, so we can guess where he stands on the Second and taxes, which imo are the most vital.

But yah, he seems to understand and or appreciate some aspects of a free market and that government has gone full authoritarian.

Union membership has declined in the same period from 33% to about 10% — its lowest level since the 1930s,” he wrote on Twitter

People can engage in collective bargaining without a union...

American industries should not be forced to offshore to low-wage areas as nations compete with each other to sacrifice wages and working conditions in a ‘race to the bottom

Agreed, deregulate and cut taxes.

[jmdrake]

I'll admit Kennedy now has my attention...I'm listening.

But so far he only sees one half of the problem.

He is still in favor of the massive regulatory state.

Thought experiment. England abolished slavery in 1833. Imagine if that year England had also said "And we won't buy cotton or any other commodity from countries that allow the use of slave labor?" I agree that the regulatory state is an abomination. There should be real reforms like congressional abolishment of the so called "Chevron doctrine."[1] But some basic laws like "You can't knowingly force people to work with hazardous material without informing them of the risk and providing safety equipment" is still needed.

[1] For those that didn't have to sit through a regulatory state class, Chevron deference is what allows regulatory agencies to just make up law on the fly based on the idea that they are the experts. It's what allows the EPA to regulate CO2 as a "pollutant", allowed the bump fire stock ban and is currently being used for the pistol brace ban.

[jmdrake]

Right, and hes a Dem, so we can guess where he stands on the Second and taxes, which imo are the most vital.

But yah, he seems to understand and or appreciate some aspects of a free market and that government has gone full authoritarian.



People can engage in collective bargaining without a union...



Agreed, deregulate and cut taxes.

People can also engage in commerce without corporate personhood and did so until after the U.S. Civil War.

[unknown]

People can also engage in commerce without corporate personhood and did so until after the U.S. Civil War.

This went over my head, which isnt difficult.

Are you saying that slavery is more likely without unions?

[Todd]

I'll admit Kennedy now has my attention...I'm listening.

But so far he only sees one half of the problem.

He is still in favor of the massive regulatory state.

I think what I've learned with people like this is that if they are truly doing things for the good of the country and are at least resembling a "statesman" rather than a career Oligarch, they are more amicable to actually having a discussion about things. I guess what I'm trying to say it's more likely that someone like RFK Jr. is willing to actually listen to people who disagree with the regulatory state than it is for someone who is strictly there to enrich themselves and the cronies who put them in office.

That being said, we will have to see how willing he is and where his red lines are. Do I think we will hear a debate where he gets to answer those questions? I kind of doubt it in this political climate.

[Anti Federalist]

I think what I've learned with people like this is that if they are truly doing things for the good of the country and are at least resembling a "statesman" rather than a career Oligarch, they are more amicable to actually having a discussion about things. I guess what I'm trying to say it's more likely that someone like RFK Jr. is willing to actually listen to people who disagree with the regulatory state than it is for someone who is strictly there to enrich themselves and the cronies who put them in office.

That being said, we will have to see how willing he is and where his red lines are. Do I think we will hear a debate where he gets to answer those questions? I kind of doubt it in this political climate.

I doubt it as well.

Leave aside all pre-conceived opinions on Trump, and look at him the same way as Kennedy.

He was an ex-democrat with populist ideas about how to actually make the country better.

And look what they did to him.

[CaptUSA]

Man, I REALLY don't get the appeal of protectionist tariffs. I mean, I get the appeal for politicians... I just don't know why people fall for this.


The argument seems to go like: "Let's drive up our price for the goods we get from other countries so we'll spend more on the goods that we have to produce here." Obviously, from a producer point of view, that's an attractive theory. But from a consumer's point of view, it'll just mean that I have less to spend on other things. People who build decks or clean pools or run restaurants or a myriad of other pursuits that cannot be imported certainly do NOT want their customers to have less money to spend on these things.

[PAF]

I'll admit Kennedy now has my attention...I'm listening.

But so far he only sees one half of the problem.

He is still in favor of the massive regulatory state.

RFK Jr speaks very often about true Free Markets and regulatory capture. Once those 2 things are addressed, and understood more widespread by the people, the other half of the problem should work its way out on its own. I think believe RFK understands that.

[Anti Federalist]

Man, I REALLY don't get the appeal of protectionist tariffs. I mean, I get the appeal for politicians... I just don't know why people fall for this.


The argument seems to go like: "Let's drive up our price for the goods we get from other countries so we'll spend more on the goods that we have to produce here." Obviously, from a producer point of view, that's an attractive theory. But from a consumer's point of view, it'll just mean that I have less to spend on other things. People who build decks or clean pools or run restaurants or a myriad of other pursuits that cannot be imported certainly do NOT want their customers to have less money to spend on these things.

Because you can not support a prosperous and wide spread middle class and the good paying jobs that it requires on building decks, cleaning pools and running restaurants.

You must manufacture. You must add value to, quite literally, dirt, and turn it into a locomotive or a fork or a jet engine, or light bulb or an MRI machine.

Every other nation on earth, that wants to be strong, prosperous, growing and innovating for the betterment of its citizens and their posterity, enacts tariffs and restrictions on foreign imports that would negatively impact those goals.

We did, up until about 50 years ago. When we, and the rest of the western world, caught the suicidal mind virus that is killing us, literally and figuratively and decided to lower our trade barriers, unilaterally, in order to cover up the inflation that killing our currency and selling off our manufacturing base to the ChiComs was going to cause.

I would happily pay what increase in prices a 30 percent across the baord import duty would cost, to re-start those factories, re-employ those people who are dying by the hundreds of thousands now of hopelessness and unemployment, ensure that my neighbor and his family was doing well and thriving.

Now, some nations have no "dirt". They can create a thriving economy based on nothing but trade, but they cannot defend themselves or set their own destiny.

Hong Kong comes to mind, or Cayman Islands.

[oyarde]

I'll admit Kennedy now has my attention...I'm listening.

But so far he only sees one half of the problem.

He is still in favor of the massive regulatory state.

the swami guy (vivek r.) has an interesting interview on kitco news yesterday , its up on the site.

[CaptUSA]

Because you can not support a prosperous and wide spread middle class and the good paying jobs that it requires on building decks, cleaning pools and running restaurants.

You must manufacture. You must add value to, quite literally, dirt, and turn it into a locomotive or a fork or a jet engine, or light bulb or an MRI machine.

Ricardo, Bastiat, hell even Milton Friedman have disproven this sentiment. We send counterfeit FRN's to other countries and they send us useful things that we don't need to spend on wealth on here. This frees up resources to spend on other things. Protectionist tariffs just reduce the amount of available capital that we have to grow our wealth.

Comparative advantage.

Tariffs don't protect wealth - they protect some industries at the expense of others while reducing wealth. I agree that manufacturing is important, but you don't get MORE manufacturing from reducing the nations' wealth. You just funnel a smaller pie into fewer hands.

[PAF]

Ricardo, Bastiat, hell even Milton Friedman have disproven this sentiment. We send counterfeit FRN's to other countries and they send us useful things that we don't need to spend on wealth on here. This frees up resources to spend on other things. Protectionist tariffs just reduce the amount of available capital that we have to grow our wealth.

Comparative advantage.

Tariffs don't protect wealth - they protect some industries at the expense of others while reducing wealth. I agree that manufacturing is important, but you don't get MORE manufacturing from reducing the nations' wealth. You just funnel a smaller pie into fewer hands.

+Rep

[acptulsa]

I agree that manufacturing is important, but you don't get MORE manufacturing from reducing the nations' wealth. You just funnel a smaller pie into fewer hands.

No, but is it possible to get more manufacturing and reduce the nation's wealth by doing something else? Is it possible to spread a smaller pie out among more hands?

No, I'm not generally in favor of engineered wealth distribution. But it isn't always a clear cut case that tariffs should never be used to slow "dumping", for example. The people who founded this country were a pretty libertarian bunch, and they seemed to consider tariffs the least objectionable source of funding.

What I want to know is, when tariffs go up, what taxes come down? If the answer is, "None", then you're right. It'll be another net loss for the middle class, because the extra taxes are liable to make the market for the manufactured item disappear.

[jmdrake]

This went over my head, which isnt difficult.

Are you saying that slavery is more likely without unions?

That's okay. It took me a while to understand this. The founding fathers did not believe in rights for corporations. That was something that was created after the civil war out of whole cloth. Basically the 14th amendment, which was designed to give rights to black people, was twisted by corporate lawyers to say "Corporations are people too and are entitled to inalienable rights." Whenever anyone speaks out against corporate personhood, some well meaning conservative says "But are you saying people can't pool their resources for commerce?" Of COURSE people can pool their resources for commerce. That was allowed before corporate personhood existed and can continue if corporate personhood was abolished.

So...the analogy I was making is, just like people can collectively bargain without unions, people can partner together for business without corporate personhood. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the growth of unions corresponds to the creation of the corporate person.

[acptulsa]

So...the analogy I was making is, just like people can collectively bargain without unions, people can partner together for business without corporate personhood.

Which is important for the same reason the Nuremberg Trials were important. Corporate personhood has a bad habit of allowing evildoers to hide behind, "I was just following orders."

[jmdrake]

Man, I REALLY don't get the appeal of protectionist tariffs. I mean, I get the appeal for politicians... I just don't know why people fall for this.


The argument seems to go like: "Let's drive up our price for the goods we get from other countries so we'll spend more on the goods that we have to produce here." Obviously, from a producer point of view, that's an attractive theory. But from a consumer's point of view, it'll just mean that I have less to spend on other things. People who build decks or clean pools or run restaurants or a myriad of other pursuits that cannot be imported certainly do NOT want their customers to have less money to spend on these things.

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion. From a consumer's point of view if I have to spend less money on "people who build decks or clean pools or run restaurants" because the deck builders, pool cleaners and restaurant workers are all asylum seekers from Honduras then I'll have more money in my pocket too. But at least they aren't slaves like the workers at the Apple assembly plant in China. So from your argument, it makes more sense to support open borders than it does free trade. And...that fits @PAF's argument (I think) though not @Anti Federalist's argument (I think).

That said, I personally consider having less money in my pocket in exchange for my goods and services not having been produced by slave labor a fair exchange. I don't want slavery in the U.S., and I don't want goods produced by slave labor coming to the U.S.

[Brian4Liberty]

The breakdown of unions — in part, as a result of decades-long job-killing free trade policies — has coincided with growing income inequalities, Kennedy noted.

The unions were (and are) part of the problem. They are part of the corrupt crony kleptocrat leftist system. And many actions of the unions created incentive for outsourcing, and purchasing of imported goods.

One of the reasons that most existing unions are public sector is that unions eventually bankrupt businesses. It takes much longer for them to bankrupt a government with fiat currency.

Outsourcing of production and importation of massive numbers of cheaper labor is what has caused the working class to lose ground.

Globalism and compete lack of any sense of morality or community has led to executives comfortable with increasing their personal wealth by any means necessary. They will outsource a company and give it to the Chinese for a payout. American workers, American consumers, and American national security be damned.

[Brian4Liberty]

From the end of WWII through the 1980s, income distribution stayed relatively constant. But union membership began declining, and the share of income going to the bottom 90% followed it. Capitalism only functions equitably if workers have the collective bargaining power of unions, so they can claim a fair share of the economic pie.

Let's keep it simple. There's a name for when wages are collectively "negotiated" and standardized. It's called price fixing, and price fixing does not work.

[jmdrake]

Which is important for the same reason the Nuremberg Trials were important. Corporate personhood has a bad habit of allowing evildoers to hide behind, "I was just following orders."

Yep!

The Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine is a common-law doctrine in American law that states that members of a corporation, such as employees, cannot be held to have conspired among themselves, because the corporation and its agents constitute a single actor for purposes of law. Therefore, it is reasoned that there is no plurality of actors needed to constitute a conspiracy.[1][2] However, the doctrine is held not to apply in some areas of law. Furthermore, in some areas of law, is not uniformly applied the same way throughout the federal circuits.[3][4]

Want to get away with a conspiracy? Incorporate it! This even helps skirt civil RICO claims.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=35&id=&page=

[CaptUSA]

No, but is it possible to get more manufacturing and reduce the nation's wealth by doing something else? Is it possible to spread a smaller pie out among more hands?

No, I'm not generally in favor of engineered wealth distribution. But it isn't always a clear cut case that tariffs should never be used to slow "dumping", for example. The people who founded this country were a pretty libertarian bunch, and they seemed to consider tariffs the least objectionable source of funding.

What I want to know is, when tariffs go up, what taxes come down? If the answer is, "None", then you're right. It'll be another net loss for the middle class, because the extra taxes are liable to make the market for the manufactured item disappear.

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here... This thread was about using tariffs as a means to protect American jobs. (or rather, some jobs at the expense of others) This was NOT a thread about how to fund the federal government.

Yes, a low, uniform tariff would be preferable to other forms of taxation. They all harm the economy, but some harm it worse than others. If you offset these proposed tariffs with cuts in other taxes, then the consumer presumably would be in relatively the same spot. But the protectionists neither want tariffs to be low nor uniform. They believe in a flawed economic model that says if you make it more expensive to buy things from overseas, that you will increase your nation's wealth because people will have no choice but to buy domestically.

It's been debated in here over and over, but it's pretty easy to see where that model is flawed, if you look at the big picture. By trading some of your wealth for something of greater value, you're bringing more wealth into your nation. If you put up barriers to prevent that, the aggregate wealth will be lower, which will harm workers in this country who rely on that extra wealth of the consumer for a living.

When you're talking about raw resources, then it's a no brainer. If you can get raw resources from another land, and at a cheaper cost than depleting your own nation's resources, you do it. You may need to explain why another nation "dumping" their goods into our country is a bad thing. The only argument that I've heard that is somewhat compelling is that our nation could become reliant upon the dumping and would lose our ability to find alternatives. I'm not sure this is really valid since free markets are incredibly adaptable, but at least there's an argument to be made there. But the idea that protectionist policies help our economy has just been debunked so many times it's become trite.

[Occam's Banana]

Because you can not support a prosperous and wide spread middle class and the good paying jobs that it requires on building decks, cleaning pools and running restaurants.

You must manufacture. You must add value to, quite literally, dirt, and turn it into a locomotive or a fork or a jet engine, or light bulb or an MRI machine.

I don't think CaptUSA is saying that "you can [support] a prosperous [economy]" solely (or even primarily) upon "building decks, cleaning pools and running restaurants" (and that's certainly not how they do it in Hong Kong or the Caymans, in any case - their methods are much more esoteric).

Desirable, useful, important, and even critically necessary work is done by doctors, lawyers, teachers, garbage men, retail clerks - and, yes, even deck-builders, pool-cleaners, and restaurant-runners. The point is that the people who do those jobs - i.e., jobs which do not involve the production of tariffed goods - are the ones who most bear the burden of and pay the greater price for the "protection" afforded to and enjoyed by the politically-connected sectors shielded by high protective tariffs. The prosperity of the "protected" groups (employers and their workers) comes at the expense of the "unprotected" ones [1]. It's a transfer of wealth from one group to another, just as with any other tax. And just as no redistributive tax ever made the general population more prosperous (or "protected" their prosperity) - but only caused some to prosper at the expense of others - no tariff ever will either.

Things like "green" "net-zero" (or even worse, "absolute zero") fatwas, increasingly insane regulatory burdens, incentive-killing taxes, resource-diverting subsidies, and cost-plus government (especially military) contracting - to name just a few such factors - have been far, far more damaging to American manufactury than cheap, low-quality knock-offs and plastic gewgaws from places like China [2] could ever hope to be.

Tariffs are just a particular kind of tax. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. They have no magical properties that somehow exempt them from the consequences of being taxes. An economy can no more be tariffed into general prosperity than it can be taxed into it - and general prosperity can no more be protected by higher tariffs than it can be protected by increasing taxes.

The people who founded this country were a pretty libertarian bunch, and they seemed to consider tariffs the least objectionable source of funding.

The key phrase here being "least objectionable" - meaning "still objectionable, but less so". A low general tariff will still impair and lessen the prosperity of those groups (doctors, garbage men, etc.) from whom wealth is being transferred for the benefit of others - but at least it is less damaging and intrusive than other forms of taxation (including high protective tariffs). That is why Ron Paul endorses low general tariffs as a primary source of government revenue (while acknowledging that they still involve at least some degree of economic impairment, as all taxes necessarily must).

Economists of all schools have long recognized that on net, protective tariffs stunt and retard the economies upon which they are imposed, and even economists who do endorse protective tariffs in some cases as special ad hoc measures - such as a means of shielding nascent or immature industries - acknowledge that at some point, "the training wheels will have to come off" if the protected sectors are ever to become viable over the long term, and not chronically dependent upon the vagaries of government policy and the feckless whims of politicians.

There are reasons why the several American states don't (and shouldn't) impose tariffs upon one another's goods. Someone riddle me this: if high protective tariffs are such a necessary and even wonderful thing, then shouldn't their advocates be declaring that Ohio needs to "protectively" tariff goods from Pennsylvania (and vice versa)? And if they aren't declaring this, then why not? What do they have against protecting the prosperity of Ohioans (or of Pennsylvanians)?



[1] It should also be noted that the latter ("unprotected") group outnumbers the former ("protected") group. That's how these redistribution schemes always work. Tax the many to enrich the few[er]. File under "Dispersed Costs, Concentrated Benefits".

[2] And the "slave labor" aspect of the matter with respect to Chinese goods has nothing to do with it. The laws of economics in general, and the laws of supply and demand in particular, are cold and calculating. They don't care about the manner in which a thing was produced. They only care about the value of the thing that was produced, according to the entirely subjective assessments made by buyers.

[acptulsa]

The key phrase here being "least objectionable" -

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.

[Occam's Banana]

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it.

You're welcome. I always appreciate precision of expression.

[PAF]

...it makes more sense to support open borders than it does free trade. And...that fits @PAF's argument (I think) though not @Anti Federalist's argument (I think).

Why is the word "than", and not "and" in there?

That said, I personally consider having less money in my pocket in exchange for my goods and services not having been produced by slave labor a fair exchange. I don't want slavery in the U.S., and I don't want goods produced by slave labor coming to the U.S.

Why is the word "fair", and not "free" in there?


Shouldn't it be up to what Person A and Person B agrees to without any outside intervention?

What is the difference if I purchased an egg from my next door neighbor, than if I drove 10 miles over the state line to buy a stained-glass window, than if I bought a tea kettle from China?

Does distance somehow or automatically imply that a third party has a right to steal take a cut, even when they were not present during a bilateral negotiation?

[nobody's_hero]

I wonder if he'd support slashing the income tax in exchange for tariff revenue. That'd be a pretty bold statement coming from a democrat, but if you want people to be more productive and lift themselves out of poverty, it makes less sense to tax income than consumption (particularly consumption of cheap foreign crap). We've gotten away with it— not because it is some sound economic model that just works—but because we've printed our wealth out of thin air and we're running off the fumes of at least two generations that were far more productive than the slouches we've got 'working' today who need things like yoga and latte breaks and those bring-your-emotional-support-pets-to-work type-people.

[jmdrake]

Why is the word "than", and not "and" in there?

1) Because I was making a comparison and 2) because I do think it's a moral position to say "We don't trade with slave nations."

Why is the word "fair", and not "free" in there?


Shouldn't it be up to what Person A and Person B agrees to without any outside intervention?

What is the difference if I purchased an egg from my next door neighbor, than if I drove 10 miles over the state line to buy a stained-glass window, than if I bought a tea kettle from China?

Does distance somehow or automatically imply that a third party has a right to steal take a cut, even when they were not present during a bilateral negotiation?

You're focusing on the "cut" (the tariff). I'm focused on the slavery. I don't want my next door neighbor owning slaves. I don't want the Chinese owning slaves either. I don't think owning other people is a "right." I'm not ready to totally dispense with nation states for that reason. There needs to be, IMO, some societal mechanism to enforce the "You can't own other people" idea. Had England simply said "FU" to southern cotton growers after England abolished slavery, then slavery would have ended decades earlier without a civil war. A win/win IMO.

[PAF]

1) Because I was making a comparison and 2) because I do think it's a moral position to say "We don't trade with slave nations."


You're focusing on the "cut" (the tariff). I'm focused on the slavery. I don't want my next door neighbor owning slaves. I don't want the Chinese owning slaves either. I don't think owning other people is a "right." I'm not ready to totally dispense with nation states for that reason. There needs to be, IMO, some societal mechanism to enforce the "You can't own other people" idea. Had England simply said "FU" to southern cotton growers after England abolished slavery, then slavery would have ended decades earlier without a civil war. A win/win IMO.

I was clarifying my position because you stated "I think" next to my mention:

...it makes more sense to support open borders than it does free trade. And...that fits @PAF's argument (I think) though not @Anti Federalist's argument (I think).

It makes more sense to me that open borders AND free trade should go hand in hand.


I then followed up with:

Why is the word "fair", and not "free" in there?

Shouldn't it be up to what Person A and Person B agrees to without any outside intervention?

What is the difference if I purchased an egg from my next door neighbor, than if I drove 10 miles over the state line to buy a stained-glass window, than if I bought a tea kettle from China?

Does distance somehow or automatically imply that a third party has a right to steal take a cut, even when they were not present during a bilateral negotiation?

@acptulsa stated "least objectionable" in regard to tariffs, which is accurate, but still theft nonetheless. For an absolutist like me, it is slavery just the same; one can not be just a "little bit" pregnant.

So where does one draw the line? Just a "little bit" of slavery is ok and acceptable when your wealth is stolen by a third party outsider, as long as you are not beaten over the head with a bat in an alley?

[acptulsa]

@acptulsa stated "least objectionable" in regard to tariffs, which is accurate, but still theft nonetheless. For an absolutist like me, it is slavery just the same; one can not be just a "little bit" pregnant.

So where does one draw the line? Just a "little bit" of slavery is ok and acceptable when your wealth is stolen by a third party outsider, as long as you are not beaten over the head with a bat in an alley?

So you're saying fighting slavery with slavery doesn't agree with you? How do you feel about fighting fire with fire?

@jmdrake you may find the all taxation is theft position doesn't align precisely with yours. But please set that aside a moment. Is your position on tariffs a bit paternal? Companies from Nestlē's to Anhauser Busch have discovered that people are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves who they want to boycott.