Justin Amash is the anti-Ron Paul

[nobody's_hero]

Which is ultimately what most of this tariff talk is about. Who cares if manufacturing jobs are going away? Why are those jobs worth saving? Protectionist tariffs are welfare stolen from people not in those protected industries. Not to mention we manufacture more now as a country than ever before.

Protecting dying, uncompetitive industries makes society poorer. It only hurts those unwilling to adapt.

Not everyone is going to go work for the Space-X program as a physicist. I know the prevailing theory is that manufacturing goes away and the labor pool shifts towards high tech jobs, but that's a fantasy.

What is FAR more likely is that more people out-of-work means more clamoring for welfare programs, as people with absolutely no skin in the game look towards those who are employed in those high tech jobs to provide for them.

If you have a job, you have self-sufficiency. You have something to lose. You have a dog in the fight.

It's not just the industries that are being "protected", it's the workers as well.

I guess if I'm gonna pay for it one way or another, I'd much rather people have some idea of what it means to earn a paycheck in the process.

[TheCount]

I am not arguing you with on things like cars, I own a made in Japan car myself. But it is fools errand to give economic support to developing rival political powers and let them have the advantage in trade that makes you more reliant on them.

What makes garlic more economically important than cars?

[PAF]

What makes garlic more economically important than cars?

It's the age old thinking of "picking sides".

[kahless]

Not everyone is going to go work for the Space-X program as a physicist. I know the prevailing theory is that manufacturing goes away and the labor pool shifts towards high tech jobs, but that's a fantasy.

What is FAR more likely is that more people out-of-work means more clamoring for welfare programs, as people with absolutely no skin in the game look towards those who are employed in those high tech jobs to provide for them.

If you have a job, you have self-sufficiency. You have something to lose. You have a dog in the fight.

It's not just the industries that are being "protected", it's the workers as well.

I guess if I'm gonna pay for it one way or another, I'd much rather people have some idea of what it means to earn a paycheck in the process.

It is pretty obvious, the lies like everyone is going to be high tech is just method to hide their true intentions from the rubes. It is all one big con job. I suppose some people really fall for the propaganda whether foreign or domestic.

[UWDude]

We need to end our liberty society because if we don't then the immigrants will come here and end our liberty society.

We don't have a liberty society, remember? You guys keep saying we need to get rid of entitlements.
Entitlements are not part of a liberty society.

We need to let in as many immigrants as possible until we get rid of entitlements.

[kcchiefs6465]

.: Effort and Result
PUBLISHING HISTORY:
Original title: “Effort, résultat.”
Place and date of first publication: JDE 11 (April 1845): 10–16.
First French edition as book or pamphlet: Economic Sophisms (First Series) (1846).
Location in Paillottet’s edition of OC: Vol. 4. Sophismes économiques. Petits pamphlets I, pp. 19–27.
Previous translations: 1st English ed., 1846; 1st American ed., 1848; FEE ed., 1964.

We have just seen that there are obstacles between our needs and their satisfaction. We manage to overcome them or to reduce them by using our various faculties. In a very general way, we may say that production is an effort followed by a result.

But against what is our well-being or wealth measured? Is it on the result of the effort? Is it on the effort itself? There is always a ratio between the effort employed and the result obtained. Does progress consist in the relative increase of the second or of the first term of this relationship?

Both of these theses have been advocated; in political economy, they divide the field of opinion.

According to the first thesis, wealth is the result of output. It increases in accordance with the increase in the ratio of the result to the effort. Absolute perfection, of which the exemplar is God, consists in the infinite distancing of two terms, in this instance: effort nil; result infinite.

The second thesis claims that it is the effort itself that constitutes and measures wealth. To progress is to increase the ratio of the effort to the result. [19] Its ideal may be represented by the effort, at once eternal and sterile, of Sisyphus.1,2

Naturally, the first welcomes everything that tends to decrease the difficulties involved and increase the product: the powerful machines that add to human powers, the trade that enables better advantage to be drawn from the natural resources spread to a greater or lesser extent over the face of the earth, the intelligence that makes discoveries, the experience that verifies these discoveries, the competition that stimulates production, etc.

Logically, by the same token, the second willfully summons up everything whose effect is to increase the difficulties of production and decrease the output: privileges, monopolies, restrictions, prohibitions, the banning of machines, sterility, etc.

It is fair to note that the universal practice of men is always directed by the principle of the first doctrine. Nobody has ever seen and nobody will ever see anyone working, whether he be a farmer, manufacturer, trader, artisan, soldier, writer, or scholar, who does not devote the entire force of his intelligence to doing things better, faster, and more economically, in a word, to doing more with less.

The opposite doctrine is practiced by theoreticians, deputies, journalists, statesmen, and ministers, in a word, men whose role in this world is to carry out experiments on society.

Again it should be noted that, with regard to things that concern them personally, they, like everybody else in the world, act on the principle of obtaining from work the greatest number of useful results possible.

You may think I am exaggerating, and that there are no real Sisyphists.

If you mean that, in practice, the principle is not pushed to the limit of its consequences, I would readily agree with you. Actually, this is always the case when people start from a false principle. It soon leads to results that are so absurd and harmful that one is simply forced to abandon it. For this reason, very practical productive activity never accepts Sisyphism: punishment would follow errors too closely for them not to be revealed. However, with regard to speculative theories of industrial activity, such as those developed [20] by theoreticians and statesmen, a false principle may be followed for a long time before people are made aware of its falsity by complicated consequences of which moreover they are ignorant, and when at last they are revealed, and action is taken in accordance with the opposing principle, people contradict themselves and seek justification in this incomparably absurd modern axiom: in political economy there is no absolute principle.3
Let us thus see whether the two opposing principles that I have just established do not hold sway in turn, one in actual production and the other in the legislation regulating production.

I have already recalled something M. Bugeaud has said; however, in M. Bugeaud there are two men, one a farmer and the other a legislator.

As a farmer, M. Bugeaud tends to devote all his efforts to this twin aim: to save on work and to obtain bread cheaply. When he prefers a good cart to a bad one, when he improves the quality of fertilizer, when in order to break up his soil he substitutes the action of the atmosphere for that of the harrow or the hoe as far as he can, when he calls to his assistance all the procedures in which science and experiment have shown their effectiveness, he has and can have one single goal: to reduce the ratio of the effort to the result. Actually, we have no other way of recognizing the skill of the farmer and the quality of the procedure other than measuring what they have saved in effort and added to the result. And since all the farmers around the world act according to this principle, it may be said that the entire human race aspires, doubtless to its advantage, to obtaining bread or any other product more cheaply and to reducing the effort required to have a given quantity available.

Once account has been taken of this incontrovertible tendency in human beings, it ought to be enough to show legislators the real principle of the matter, that is, show them how they should be supporting productive economic activity (as far as it lies within their mission to support it), for it would be absurd to say that human laws ought to act in opposition to the laws of providence.

Nevertheless, the deputy, M. Bugeaud, has been heard to exclaim, “I do not understand the theory of low prices; I would prefer to see bread more expensive and work more plentiful.” And as a result, the deputy for the Dordogne has voted for legislative measures whose effect has been to hamper trade precisely because it indirectly procures us what direct production can supply us only at a higher cost.

Well, it is very clear that M. Bugeaud’s principle as a deputy is diametrically [21] opposed to that of M. Bugeaud as a farmer. If he were consistent with himself, he would vote against any restriction in the Chamber or else he would carry onto his farm the principles he proclaims from the rostrum. He would then be seen to sow his wheat on the most infertile of his fields, since he would then succeed in working a great deal for little return. He would be seen to forbid the use of the plough, since cultivation using his nails would satisfy his double desire of making bread more expensive and work more plentiful.

The avowed aim and acknowledged effect of restriction is to increase work.

It also has the avowed aim and acknowledged effect of raising prices, which is nothing other than making products scarce. Thus, when taken to its limit, it is pure Sisyphism as we have defined it: infinite work, product nil.

Baron Charles Dupin,4 said to be a leading light among the peers in economic science, accuses the railway of harming shipping, and it is clear that it is the nature of a more perfect means to restrict the use of a means that is comparatively rougher. However, the railway can harm shipping only by diverting transport to itself; it can do so only by carrying it out more cheaply, and it can carry it out more cheaply only by reducing the ratio of the effort used to the result obtained, since this is what constitutes the lower cost. When, therefore, Baron Dupin deplores this reduction of work for a given result, he is following the lines of the doctrine of Sisyphism. Logically, since he prefers ships to rail, he ought to prefer carts to ships, packhorses to carts, and backpacks to all other known means of transport, since this is the means that requires the greatest amount of work for the least result.

“Work constitutes the wealth of a people,” said M. de Saint-Cricq, this minister of trade who imposed so many impediments to trade. It should not be believed that this was an elliptical proposition which meant: “The results of work constitute the wealth of a people.” No, this economist genuinely meant to say that it is the intensity of labor that measures wealth, and proof of this is that, from one inference to another, one restriction to another, he led France and considered he was doing a good thing in this, to devote twice as much work to acquire the same amount of iron, for example. In England, iron then cost 8 fr.; in France it cost 16 fr. If we take a day’s work to cost 1 fr., it is clear that France could, through trade, procure a quintal5 of iron for eight days taken from national work as a whole. Thanks to M. de Saint-Cricq’s [22] restrictive measures, France needed sixteen days of work to obtain a quintal of iron through direct production. Double labor for identical satisfaction, therefore double wealth; here again wealth is measured not by outcomes but by the intensity of the work. Is this not Sisyphism in all its glory?

And so that there is no possible misunderstanding, the minister is careful to take his idea further, and in the same way as he has just called the intensity of labor wealth, he is heard calling the abundance resulting from production, or things likely to satisfy our needs, poverty. “Everywhere,” he says, “machines have taken the place of manpower; everywhere, there is an overabundance of production; everywhere the balance between the ability to produce and the means of consumption has been destroyed.” We see that, according to M. de Saint-Cricq, if France was in a critical situation it was because it produced too much and its production was too intelligent and fruitful. We were too well fed, too well clothed, too well provided for in every way. Production was too fast and exceeded all our desires. An end had to be put to this scourge, and to this end we had to force ourselves, through restrictions, to work more to produce less.

I have also recalled the opinion of another minister of trade, M. d’Argout. It is worth our spending a little time on it. As he wished to deliver a terrible blow to sugar beet, he said,

Growing sugar beet is doubtless useful, but its usefulness is limited. It does not involve the gigantic developments that people were happy to forecast for it. To be convinced of this, you just have to note that this crop will of necessity be restricted to the limits of consumption. Double or triple current consumption in France if you want, you will always find that a very minimal portion of the land would be enough to meet the needs of this consumption. (This is certainly a strange complaint!) Do you want proof of this? How many hectares6 were planted with sugar beet in 1828? There were 3,130, which is equivalent to 1/10540 of the cultivatable land. How many are there now that indigenous sugar7 has taken over one-third of consumption? There are 16,700 hectares, or 1/1978 of the cultivatable land, or 45 square meters [centiares] per commune. If we suppose that indigenous [23] sugar had already taken over the entire consumption, we would have only 48,000 hectares planted with beetroot, or 1/680 of the cultivatable land.8,9

There are two things in this quotation: facts and doctrine. The facts tend to establish that little land, capital, and labor is needed to produce a great deal of sugar and that each commune in France would be abundantly provided with it if it devoted one hectare of its territory to its cultivation. The doctrine consists in seeing this situation as disastrous and seeing in the very power and fruitfulness of the new industry the limit of its usefulness.

I have no need to make myself the defender of sugar beet or the judge of the strange facts put forward by M. d’Argout,10 but it is worth examining in detail the doctrine of a statesman to whom France entrusted for many years the fate of its agriculture and trade.

I said at the beginning that there was a variable ratio between productive effort and its result; that absolute imperfection consists in an infinite effort with no result: that absolute perfection consists in an unlimited result with no effort; and that perfectibility consists in a gradual reduction in the effort compared to the result.

But M. d’Argout informs us that death is where we believe we are glimpsing life and that the importance of a branch of production is a direct result of its impotence. What, for example, can we expect from sugar beet? Do you not see that 48,000 hectares of land and a proportional amount of capital and manpower will be enough to provide all of France with sugar? Therefore it is an industry with limited usefulness, limited, of course, with regard to the input of labor it requires, the only way, according to the former minister, [24] in which an industry can be useful. This usefulness would be much more limited still if, because of the fertility of the soil or the richness of the sugar beet, we harvested from 14,000 hectares what we could obtain only from 48,000. Oh! If twenty or a hundred times more land, capital, or labor were needed to achieve the same result, fair enough, we might build a few hopes on this new industry and it would be worthy of the full protection of the state, since it would offer a vast opportunity for national work. But to produce a lot with a little! That would be a bad example, and it is right for the law to establish order in this regard.

But what is the truth with regard to sugar cannot be a falsehood with regard to bread. If, therefore, the usefulness of an industry is to be assessed, not by the satisfaction it can provide through a given quantity of work, but on the contrary through the development of the work it requires to meet a given amount of satisfaction; what we ought obviously to want is that each hectare of land should produce little wheat and each grain of wheat little food. In other words, our territory should be infertile, since then the mass of land, capital, and labor that we would need to mobilize to feed the population would be much more in comparison. It might even be said that the market open to human labor will be in direct proportion to this infertility. The desires of MM. Bugeaud, Saint-Cricq, Dupin, and d’Argout will be granted. Bread will be expensive, work plentiful, and France will be rich, rich as these men understand the term.

What we ought to want in addition is for human intelligence to grow weaker and die out, for as long as it exists, it will constantly seek to increase the ratio of the end to the means and the product to the labor. It is actually in that, and only in that, that it consists.

Thus, Sisyphism is the doctrine of all the men who have been responsible for our economic development. It would not be just to blame them for this. This principle directs the ministers only because it holds sway in the Chambers; it holds sway in the Chambers only because it is sent there by the electorate, and the electorate is imbued with it only because public opinion is saturated with it.

I think I should repeat here that I am not accusing men such as MM. Bugeaud, Saint-Cricq, Dupin, and d’Argout of being absolutely and in all circumstances, Sisyphists. They are certainly not that in their private transactions; each one of them certainly obtains by exchange what it would cost him more to obtain through direct production. However, I say that they are Sisyphists when they prevent the country from doing the same thing.

//

[kcchiefs6465]

17.: A Negative Railway

PUBLISHING HISTORY:
Original title: “Un chemin de fer negative.”
Place and date of first publication: No date given. First published in book form.
First French edition as book or pamphlet: Economic Sophisms (First Series) (1846).
Location in Paillottet’s edition of OC: Vol. 4. Sophismes économiques. Petits pamphlets I, pp. 93–94.
Previous translations: 1st English ed., 1846; 1st American ed., 1848; FEE ed., 1964.
[82]

I have said that when, unfortunately, we took the point of view of the producers’ interest, we could not fail to clash with the general interest, since producers, as such, demand only effort, needs, and obstacles.

I have found a remarkable example of this in a Bordeaux journal.


M. Simiot asks himself this question:

Should the Paris-to-Spain railway be offered to Bordeaux with a complete fracture in the line?3

He answered it in the positive with a host of reasons that it is not my place to examine but which include the following:

The railway between Paris and Bayonne should be completely broken in two at Bordeaux so that goods and passengers forced to stop in the town would contribute revenue to boatmen, packmen, commission agents, shippers, hoteliers, etc.

It is clear that this is once again a case of the interest of producers being put ahead of the interest of consumers.

But if Bordeaux can be allowed to profit from this break in the line, and if this is in keeping with the public interest, Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orleans, and more, all intermediary points, Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., must also demand breaks in the line in the general interest, that is of course in the interest of national production, since the more breaks there are, the more consignments, commissions, and transshipping there will be all along the line. With this system, we will have created a railway made up of consecutive segments, a negative railway.

Whether the protectionists want this or not, it is no less certain that the principle of trade restriction is the same as the principle of breaks in the line: the sacrifice of the consumer to the producer and of the end to the means.

//

[kcchiefs6465]

10.: The Tax Collector

PUBLISHING HISTORY:
Original title: “Le Percepteur.”
Place and date of first publication: No date given. First published in book form.
First French edition as book or pamphlet: Economic Sophisms (Second Series) (1848). First and Second Series were combined in one edition in 1851.
Location in Paillottet’s edition: OC: Vol. 4. Sophismes économiques. Petits pamphlets I, pp. 198–203.
Previous translation: 1st American ed., 1848; 1st British ed., 1873; FEE ed., 1964.

Jacques Bonhomme, Wine Producer
Mr. Blockhead, Tax Collector

Blockhead:
You have harvested twenty barrels of wine?

Bonhomme:
Yes, with much trouble and sweat.

Blockhead:
Be so good as to deliver six of the best ones.

Bonhomme:
Six barrels out of twenty! Good heavens! Do you want to ruin me? To what use are you going to put them, if you please?

Blockhead:
The first will be sent to the creditors of the State. When we have debts, the least we can do is to pay them interest.

Bonhomme:
And where has the capital gone?

Blockhead:
It would take too long to tell you. Part in the past was placed into cartridges that produced the finest smoke in the world. Another part paid the men who were crippled on foreign soil after having ravaged it. Then, when this expenditure had attracted to our country our friends the enemy, they refused to leave without taking money, which had to be borrowed.

Bonhomme:
And what is my share today?

Blockhead:
The satisfaction of saying: How proud I am of being French when I look at the column!

Bonhomme:
And the humiliation of leaving my heirs an estate encumbered by rent in perpetuity. In the end, we have to pay what we owe whatever crazy use has been made of it. I agree to give one barrel, what about the five others?

Blockhead:
One must pay for public services, the Civil List, the judges who restore to you the field that your neighbor wants to take possession of, the gendarmes who hunt thieves while you sleep, the road mender who maintains the road that takes you to town, the parish priest who baptizes your children, the teacher who raises them, and my good self, none of whom works for nothing.

Bonhomme:
That is fair—a service for a service. I have no objection to that. I would rather sort things out directly with my parish priest and schoolteacher, but I will not insist on this. I agree to give another barrel, but there is a long way to go to six.

Blockhead:
Do you think it is asking too much for two barrels as your contribution to the cost of the army and navy?

Bonhomme:
Alas, it is not much in comparison with what they are costing me already, for they have already taken from me two sons that I loved dearly.

Blockhead:
We have to maintain the balance of power in Europe.

Bonhomme:
My God! The balance would be the same if these forces were reduced everywhere by half or three-quarters. We would preserve both our children and our revenue. All we need to do is agree on this.

Blockhead:
Yes, but we do not agree.

Bonhomme:
That is what astonishes me. For in the end everyone suffers.

Blockhead:
You wanted this, Jacques Bonhomme.

Bonhomme:
You are joking, Mr. Tax Collector. Do I have a say in the matter?

Blockhead:
Who have you voted for as your deputy?

Bonhomme:
An upright army general who will shortly become a marshal if God gives him a long enough life.

Blockhead:
And on what does this good general live?

Bonhomme:
On my barrels, I imagine.

Blockhead:
And what would happen if he voted for a reduction in the army and your contribution?

Bonhomme:
Instead of becoming a marshal, he would be retired.

Blockhead:
Do you now understand that you have yourself . . .

Bonhomme:
Let us move on to the fifth barrel, if you please.

Blockhead:
That goes to Algeria.

Bonhomme:
To Algeria! And we are assured that all Muslims are wine-haters, what barbarians! I have often asked myself whether they know nothing of Médoc because they are infidels or infidels because they know nothing of Médoc. Besides, what services do they do me in return for this ambrosia that has cost me so much work?

Blockhead:
None. For the reason that it is not intended for Muslims but for the good Christians who spend their time in Barbary.

Bonhomme:
And what are they going to do there that will be useful to me?

Blockhead:
Carry out incursions and be subjected to them; kill and be killed; catch dysentery and return for treatment; excavate ports, construct roads, build villages, and people them with Maltese, Italians, Spanish, and Swiss nationals who will live off your barrel and many other barrels which I will come to ask you for later.

Bonhomme:
Mercy on us! This is too much and I refuse outright to give you a barrel. A wine producer who indulged in such folly would be sent to Bicêtre. Driving roads through the Atlas! Good heavens! And to think I cannot leave my own home! Excavating ports in Barbary when the Garonne is silting up more every day! Taking the children I love from me in order to torment the Kabyls! Having me pay for the houses, seed, and horses that are delivered to Greeks and Maltese when there are so many poor people around us!

Blockhead:
Poor people, that is the point! The country is being relieved of this surplus population.

Bonhomme:
Thank you very much! By keeping them alive in Algeria on capital that would enable them to live here.

Blockhead:
And then you are establishing the bases for a great empire; you are bringing civilization to Africa and bedecking your country in immortal glory.

Bonhomme:
You are a poet, Mr. Tax Collector, but I am a wine producer and I refuse.

Blockhead:
Just think that in a few thousand years, you will be repaid your advances a hundredfold. This is what those in charge of the enterprise tell us.

Bonhomme:
And in the meantime, they used only at first to ask for one cask of wine to meet the costs, then it was two, then three, and here I am being taxed a whole barrel. I continue to refuse.

Blockhead:
You no longer have any time to do this. Your political delegate has stipulated a toll for you of one barrel or four full casks.

Bonhomme:
That is only too true. Cursed be my weakness! I also thought that by giving him my mandate I was being rash, for what is there in common between an army general and a poor wine producer?

Blockhead:
You can see clearly that there is something in common between you, if only the wine that you produce and that he votes for himself in your name.

Bonhomme:
Make fun of me, I deserve it, Mr. Tax Collector. But be reasonable with it; leave me at least the sixth barrel. The interest on the debts has been paid, the Civil List provided for, public services assured, and the war in Africa perpetuated. What more do you want?

Blockhead:
You cannot bargain with me. You should have made your intentions clear to the general. Now he has disposed of your harvest.

Bonhomme:
Damned Bonapartist Guardsman! But in the end, what are you going to do with this poor barrel, the flower of my cellars? Here, taste this wine. See how smooth, strong, full-bodied, velvety, and what a fine color . . .

Blockhead:
Excellent! Delicious! Just the job for M. D . . . the cloth manufacturer.

Bonhomme:
M. D . . . the cloth manufacturer! What do you mean?

Blockhead:
That he will get a good share of it.

Bonhomme:
How? What is all this? I am blowed if I understand you!

Blockhead:
Do you not know that M. D . . . has set up an enterprise that is very useful to the country, and which, in the end, makes a considerable loss each year?

Bonhomme:
I pity him wholeheartedly. But what can I do?

Blockhead:
The Chamber has understood that if this continued M. D . . . would face the choice of either having to operate his factory better or closing it.

Bonhomme:
But what is the connection between faulty business dealings on M. D’s part . . . and my barrel?

Blockhead:
The Chamber considers that if it delivered to M. D . . . some of the wine from your cellar, a few hectoliters of wheat from your neighbors, and a few sous subtracted from the earnings of the workers, his losses would be transformed into profits.

Bonhomme:
The recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But, heavens above, it is terribly iniquitous! What! M. D . . . is to cover his debts by taking my wine from me?

Blockhead:
No, not exactly your wine but its cost. This is what we call incentive subsidies. But you are totally speechless! Do you not see what a great service you are rendering to the country?

Bonhomme:
You mean to M. D . . . ?

Blockhead:
To the country. M. D . . . ensures that his industry prospers, thanks to this arrangement, and in this way, he says, the country gets richer. This is what he told the Chamber of which he is a member, in the last few days.

Bonhomme:
This is rank dishonesty! What! An ignoramus sets up an idiotic enterprise and loses his money, and if he extorts enough wine or wheat to cover his losses and even achieve some profit this will be seen as a gain for the entire country!

Blockhead:
As your authorized representative has judged this to be so, you have no option but to hand over to me your six barrels of wine and sell as best you can the fourteen barrels I am leaving you.

Bonhomme:
That is my business.

Blockhead:
You see, it would be very unfortunate if you did not get a high price for them.

Bonhomme:
I will see to it.

Blockhead:
For there are a lot of things that this price has to cover.

Bonhomme:
I know, Sir, I know.

Blockhead:
First of all, if you purchase iron to replace your shovels and ploughs, a law has decided that you will pay twice as much as it is worth to the ironmaster.

Bonhomme:
Is that so? We must be in the Black Forest!

Blockhead:
Then, if you need oil, meat, canvas, coal, wool, or sugar, each of these, according to the law, will cost you double their worth.

Bonhomme:
But this is terrible, frightful, and abominable!

Blockhead:
What is the use of complaining? You yourself, through your authorized representative, . . .

Bonhomme:
Leave my mandate alone! I have given it in an odd way, it is true. But I will no longer be hoodwinked and will have myself represented by a good, upright member of the peasantry.

Blockhead:
Nonsense! You will reelect the good general.

Bonhomme:
I! I will reelect the general to distribute my wine to Africans and manufacturers?

Blockhead:
You will reelect him, I tell you.

Bonhomme:
That is going a bit far. I will not reelect him if I do not wish to do so.

Blockhead:
But you will want to and you will reelect him.

Bonhomme:
Just let him come here looking for trouble. He will see with whom he has to deal.

Blockhead:
We will see. Good-bye. I will take your six barrels and divide them up in accordance with the general’s decision.

//

[kcchiefs6465]

13.: Protection, or the Three Municipal Magistrates
PUBLISHING HISTORY:
Original title: “La Protection ou les trois échevins.”
Place and date of first publication: No date given. First published in book form.
First French edition as book or pamphlet: Economic Sophisms (Second Series) (1848). First and Second Series were combined in one edition in 1851. Also published as “La Protection ou les trois échevins. Démonstration en quatre [215] tableaux,” in L’Annuaire de l’économie politique et de la statistique (1847), pp. 266–70.
Location in Paillottet’s edition of OC: Vol. 4. Sophismes économiques. Petits pamphlets I, pp. 229–41.
Previous translations: 1st American ed., 1848; 1st British ed., 1873; FEE ed., 1964.

A staged argument in four scenes.

Scene 1
(The scene takes place in the townhouse of Pierre, a municipal magistrate. The window gives a view of a beautiful park; three people are sitting around a table near a good fire.)

Pierre:
I say! A fire is very welcome when the Inner Man is satisfied! You must agree that it is very pleasant. But, alas! How many honest people, like the King of Yvetot, for lack of wood, blow on their fingers.

What unfortunate creatures! Heaven has inspired a charitable thought in me. Do you see these beautiful trees? I want to cut them down and distribute the wood to the poor.

Paul and Jean:
What! Free of charge?

Pierre:
Not exactly. My good works would soon be over if I dissipated my assets in this way. I estimate that my park is worth twenty thousand livres; by cutting it down I will get even more.

Paul:
You are wrong. Your wood left standing is worth more than neighboring forests because it provides more services than they can provide. If it is cut down, like its neighbors it will just be good for heating and will be worth not a denier more for each load.

Pierre:
Ha, ha! Mr. Theoretician, you have forgotten that I am a practical man. I thought that my reputation as a speculator was well enough established to protect me against being accused of stupidity. Do you think I am going to pass the time selling my wood at the low prices charged for wood floated down the Seine?

Paul:
You will have to.

Pierre:
What a naive person you are! And suppose I prevent the wood floated down the river from reaching Paris?

Paul:
That would change the picture. But how will you manage this?

Pierre:
This is the whole secret. You know that wood floated down the river pays ten sous per load on entry. Tomorrow, I will persuade the Municipal Magistrates to raise this duty to 100, 200, or even 300 livres, high enough to ensure that not a single log comes through. Well, do you follow me? If the good people do not want to die of cold, they will have to come to my yard. People will fight to have my wood; I will sell it for its weight in gold, and this well-organized charity will enable me to do other good works.

Paul:
Good heavens! What a fine scheme! It makes me think of another in the same vein.

Jean:
Let us see, what is it? Is philanthropy also concerned?

Paul:
What did you think of this butter from Normandy?

Jean:
It is excellent!

Paul:
Ah ha! It seemed all right just now, but do you not find that it sticks in your throat? I want to make better butter in Paris. I will have four or five hundred cows; I will distribute milk, butter, and cheese to the poor.

Pierre and Paul:
What! Free of charge?

Paul:
Bah! Let us always highlight charity! It has such a pretty face that even its mask is an excellent passport. I will give my butter to the people, and the people will give me their money. Is this known as selling?

Jean:
No, according to the Bourgeois Gentilhomme, but call it what you like, you will ruin yourself. Can Paris compete with Normandy in raising cows?

Paul:
I will have the saving on transport in my favor.

Jean:
So be it. But even if they pay for transport, the Normans are in a position to beat the Parisians.

Paul:
Do you call it beating someone to deliver goods to him at low prices?

Jean:
That is the accepted term. It is still true that you, for your part, will be beaten.

Paul:
Yes, like Don Quixote. The blows will fall upon Sancho. Jean, my friend, you are forgetting city tolls.

Jean:
City tolls! What have they to do with your butter?

Paul:
Right from tomorrow, I will claim protection; I will persuade the commune to prohibit butter from Normandy and Brittany. People will have to go without or buy mine, and at my price.

Jean:
By all that is holy, sirs, I find your philanthropy fascinating.

People learn to howl with the wolves, said someone.

My mind is made up. It will not be said that I am an unworthy Municipal Magistrate. Pierre, this crackling fire has inflamed your soul: Paul, this butter has loosened up the springs of your mind; well then, I also feel that this salted pork is stimulating my intelligence. Tomorrow, I will vote for the exclusion of pigs, alive or dead, and get it voted for too. Once this is done, I will build superb sties in the center of Paris, for the disgusting animal that is forbidden to Jews.

I will make myself a swineherd and pork butcher. Let us see how the good people of Lutecium will avoid coming to buy from my shop.

Pierre:
Not so fast, Sirs! If you make butter and salted meat so expensive, you will eat into the profit I am expecting from my wood.

Paul:
Heavens! My speculation will not be so marvelous any more if you hold me for ransom with your logs and hams.

Jean:
And what will I gain from making you pay over the odds for my sausages if you make me do likewise for my bread and fa gggots of wood?

Pierre:
Well, I declare! Are we going to quarrel about this? Let us rather join forces. Let us give each other mutual concessions. Besides, it is not good to listen only to the base voice of self-interest; humanity is there, should we not ensure that the people are heated?

Paul:
That is true. And people need butter to spread on their bread.

Jean:
Without doubt. And they need bacon to put in their stew.

In Chorus:
Charity to the fore! Long live philanthropy! Tomorrow! Tomorrow! We will make an assault on city tolls.

Pierre:
Ah, I was forgetting. Just a word, and this is essential. My friends, in this century of selfishness, the world is mistrustful and the purest intentions are often misinterpreted. Paul, plead in favor of wood; Jean, defend butter; and for my part, I will devote myself to local pigs. It is a good thing to anticipate nasty suspicions.

Paul and Jean (leaving):
Goodness! There is a clever man!


Scene 2

The Council of Municipal Magistrates

Paul:
My dear colleagues, every day, piles of wood come into Paris, which causes piles of cash to leave. At this rate we will all be ruined in three years, and what will become of the poor? (Cheers!) Let us prohibit foreign wood. I am not speaking for myself, since all the wood I possess would not make a toothpick. I am therefore perfectly disinterested in this matter. (Hear! Hear!) But here is Pierre, who has a stand of trees; he will ensure heating for our fellow citizens who will no longer have to depend on the charcoal makers of the Yonne. Have you ever thought of the danger we run of dying of cold if the owners of foreign forests took it into their heads not to send wood to Paris? Let us therefore prohibit their wood. In this way, we will prevent our cash from running out, create a logging industry, and create a new source of work and pay for our workers. (Applause)

Jean:
I support this proposal, which is so philanthropic and, above all, so disinterested, as the honorable gentleman who has just spoken himself has said. It is time we stopped this insolent laissez passer, which has brought unfettered competition into our market, with the result that there is no province reasonably endowed for whatever form of production it may be, that is not coming to flood us and sell it to us at rock-bottom prices, thus destroying jobs in Paris. It is up to the State to make production conditions level through wisely weighted duties, to allow only those goods that are more expensive than in Paris to enter and thus protect us from an unequal conflict. How, for example, do people want us to be able to produce milk and butter in Paris when faced with Brittany and Normandy? Just think, Sirs, that Bretons have cheaper land, hay closer to hand, and labor at more advantageous rates. Does common sense not tell us that we have to make opportunity more equal through a city toll set at a protective rate? I request that duty on milk and butter should be raised to 1,000 percent and more if necessary. People’s breakfast will be slightly more expensive, but how their earnings will rise! We will see barns and dairies being built, butter churns increasing in number, and new industries being established. It is not that there is the slightest self-interest in my proposal. I am not a cowherd, nor do I want to be. I am moved merely by the desire to be useful to the working classes. (Movement of approval)

Pierre:
I am happy to see in this assembly Statesmen that are so pure, so enlightened, and so devoted to the interests of the people. (Cheers!) I admire their selflessness and cannot do better than to follow such noble examples. I support their motion and add one to prohibit pigs from Poitou. It is not that I wish to become a swineherd or pork butcher; in this case my conscience would make it my duty to abstain. But is it not shameful, Sirs, that we should pay tribute to these peasants from Poitou who have the audacity to come into our own market and take work that we could be doing ourselves and who, after swamping us with sausages and hams, perhaps take nothing in return? In any case, who tells us that the balance of trade is not in their favor and that we are not obliged to pay them a remainder in cash? Is it not clear that, if industry from Poitou was transferred to Paris, it would create guaranteed openings for Parisian jobs? And then, Sirs, is it not highly possible, as M. Lestiboudois said so well, that we are buying salted meat from Poitou not with our income but with our capital? Where is this going to lead us? Let us therefore not allow avid, greedy, and perfidious rivals to come here and sell goods cheaply, making it impossible for us to make them ourselves. Municipal Magistrates, Paris has given us its trust, and we should justify this. The people are without work; it is up to us to create it, and if salted meat costs them slightly more, we would at least be conscious of the fact that we have sacrificed our interests in favor of those of the masses, just as any good municipal magistrate ought to do. (Thunderous applause)

A Voice:
I hear a great deal being said about the poor, but on the pretext of giving them work, people begin by taking away from them what is worth more even than work: wood, butter, and soup.

Pierre, Paul, and Jean:
Let us vote! Let us vote! Down with Utopians, theoreticians, and those who speak in generalities! Let us vote! Let us vote! (The three proposals are approved.)


Scene 3
Twenty years later

The Son:
Father, you must decide, we have to leave Paris. We can no longer live here. Jobs are scarce and everything is expensive.

The Father:
My child, you do not know how much it costs to abandon the place where we were born.

The Son:
What is worst of all is to die of hunger.

The Father:
Go, my son, and find a more hospitable land. For my part, I will not leave the grave in which your mother, brothers, and sisters have been laid to rest. I am longing to find in it at last the peace at their side that has been refused me in this town of desolation.

The Son:
Take courage, good father, we will find work away from home, in Poitou, Normandy, or in Brittany. It is said that all the industries of Paris are being gradually transferred to these far-off regions.

The Father:
It is only natural. As they can no longer sell us wood and foodstuffs, they have ceased to produce anything over their own needs; whatever time and capital they have available, they devote to making themselves the things we used to supply them with in former times.

The Son:
In the same way that in Paris, people have ceased to make fine furniture and clothing in order to plant trees and raise pigs and cows. Although I am very young, I have seen huge warehouses, sumptuous districts, and the banks of the Seine so full of life now invaded by fields and thickets.

The Father:
While the provinces are becoming covered with towns, Paris is turning into a rural area. What a frightful turnaround! And it needed only three misled municipal magistrates, assisted by public ignorance, to bring this terrible calamity down on us.

The Son:
Tell me the story, Father.

The Father:
It is very simple. On the pretext of setting up three new industries in Paris and thus supplying jobs for workers, these men had the importing of wood, butter, and meat prohibited. They claimed for themselves the right to supply these to their fellow citizens. These objects first rose to an exorbitant price. Nobody earned enough to buy them, and the small number of those who were able to obtain them spent all their resources on them and were unable to buy anything else. For this reason, all forms of industry shut down at the same time, all the quicker since the provinces no longer provided any markets. Destitution, death, and emigration began to rob Paris of its people.

The Son:
And when will this stop?

The Father:
When Paris has become a forest and prairie.

The Son:
The three Municipal Magistrates must have made huge fortunes?

The Father:
Initially, they made huge profits, but in the long run they were overcome by the general destitution.

The Son:
How is that possible?

The Father:
Do you see this ruin? It was once a magnificent townhouse surrounded by a fine park. If Paris had continued to progress, Master Pierre would have obtained more rent for it than its capital value is now worth.

The Son:
How can this be, since he now has no competition?

The Father:
Competition to sell has disappeared, but competition to buy is also disappearing with every passing day and will continue to disappear until Paris is open country and Master Pierre’s thickets have no greater value than an equal area of thicket in the Forest of Bondy. This is how monopoly, like any form of injustice, carries within itself the seed of its own punishment.

The Son:
This does not seem very clear to me, but what is incontrovertible is the decadence of Paris. Is there no way of overturning this iniquitous measure that Pierre and his colleagues caused to be adopted twenty years ago?

The Father:
I will tell you my secret. I am remaining in Paris for this; I will call upon the people to help me. It will be up to them to restore the city tolls to their original level, to remove from them the disastrous principle that has been grafted onto them and which has vegetated like a parasitic fungus.

The Son:
You should achieve success right from the very first day!

The Father:
Now, hold on! On the contrary, this work is difficult and laborious. Pierre, Paul, and Jean understand each other perfectly. They are ready to do anything rather than allow wood, butter, and meat to enter Paris. They have the people themselves on their side, as they clearly see the work given to them by the three protected industries; the people know how much work these industries are giving to woodcutters and cowherds, but they cannot have as accurate an idea of the production that would develop in the fresh air of freedom.

The Son:
If that is all that is needed, you will enlighten them.

The Father:
Child, at your age, you have no doubts about anything. If I express my thoughts in writing, the people will not read me, since there are not enough hours in the day for them to eke out their unfortunate existence. If I speak out, the Municipal Magistrates will seal my lips. The people will therefore remain disastrously misled for a long time. The political parties who base their hopes on people’s passions will spend less time dissipating their misconceptions than exploiting them. I will thus have to confront simultaneously those currently in power, the people, and the political parties. Oh! I see a terrible storm ready to break on the head of anyone bold enough to rise up against such deep-rooted iniquity in the country.

The Son:
You will have justice and truth on your side.

The Father:
And they will have force and slander on theirs. If only I were young! But age and suffering have sapped my strength.

The Son:
Very well, Father. Devote the strength left to you to serving the country. Begin the work of emancipation and leave me as an inheritance the duty to complete it.

Scene 4
Popular Unrest

Jacques Bonhomme:
People of Paris! Let us demand a reform of the city tolls! Let their original function be restored. Let each citizen be free to buy wood, butter, and meat wherever he pleases!

The People:
Long live freedom!

Pierre:
People of Paris! Do not be swayed by these words! What use is the freedom to buy if you lack the means? And how will you obtain the means if you lack work? Can Paris produce wood as cheaply as the Forest of Bondy? Meat at as low a price as Poitou? Butter in as favorable conditions as Normandy? If you open the door wide to these rival products, what will become of the cowherds, woodcutters, and pork butchers? They cannot do without protection.

The People:
Long live protection!

Jacques:
Protection! Are you the workers being protected? Are you not being made to compete against one another? Let the sellers of wood in turn suffer from competition! They have no right to increase the price of their wood by law unless they also raise rates of pay by law. Are you no longer a nation that loves equality?

The People:
Long live equality!

Pierre:
Do not listen to this revolutionary! It is true that we have increased the price of wood, meat, and butter, but this is in order to be able to pay good wages to the workers. We are motivated by charity.

The People:
Long live charity!

Jacques:
Use city tolls, if you can, to raise wages but not to make products more expensive. The people of Paris are not asking for charity, but justice!

The People:
Long live justice!

Pierre:
It is precisely the high prices of products that will produce higher wages as a result of the ricochet or flow-on effect!

The People:
Long live high prices!

Jacques:
If butter is expensive, it is not because you are paying the workers high wages. It is not even because you are making huge profits; it is just because Paris is ill-suited to this industry and because you have wanted things to be produced in town that ought to be produced in the country and things in the country that ought to be produced in town. The people do not have more work; they merely do other work. They do not have higher pay; they merely no longer buy things as cheaply.

The People:
Long live low prices!

Pierre:
You are being swayed by the fine words of this man! Let us put the question in simple terms. Is it not true that if we allow butter, wood, and meat to enter, we will be swamped by them? We would perish from a surfeit! There is therefore no other way of protecting ourselves from this different form of invasion than to shut our door to it and, in order to maintain the price of products, to produce a scarcity of them artificially.

A Few Scattered Voices:
Long live scarcity!

Jacques:
Let us set the question out in all its truth! We can share out among all the people of Paris only what there is in Paris. If there is less wood, meat, and butter, each person’s share will be smaller. Now there will be less if we keep these out than if we let them in. People of Paris! Each person can be abundantly supplied only if there is general abundance.

The People:
Long live abundance!

Pierre:
Whatever this man says, he will not prove to you that it is in your interest to be subjected to unbridled competition.

The People:
Down with competition!

Jacques:
However eloquent this man is, he will not enable you to taste the sweetness of trade restrictions.

The People:
Down with trade restrictions!

Pierre:
For my part, I declare that if you deprive the poor cowherds and swineherds of their living, if you sacrifice them to theories, I will no longer guarantee public order. Workers, do not trust this man. He is an agent of perfidious Normandy and goes abroad to seek inspiration. He is a traitor and should be hanged. (The people are silent.)

Jacques:
People of Paris, all that I am saying today I said twenty years ago, when Pierre chose to exploit city tolls for his benefit and your loss. I am not, then, an agent of the people of Normandy. Hang me if you like, but that will not stop oppression from being oppression. Friends, it is neither Jacques nor Pierre who ought to be killed but freedom, if you are afraid of it, or trade restriction if it hurts you.


The People:
Let us hang nobody and emancipate everybody!

//

[TheCount]

We need to let in as many immigrants as possible until we get rid of entitlements.

Oh, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into that briar patch!

[kahless]

No one here has a beef with free trade within the borders of the US. Big difference between trading with your enemies, paying their tariffs, dealing with their economic warfare and domestic trade.

[MaxPower]

After Ron Paul quit the Republican party in 1985, he came back to it years later. When he returned to Congress as a Republican in 1996, it was because he saw that the best path forward was through the GOP and not the Libertarian party.

In 2007 Dr. Paul and his campaign asked libertarians like myself to join the GOP. While I was reluctant to do this, I realized he was older and wiser and it made sense.

I think it is quite obvious that the Libertarian party will not be able to compete with the Republican and Democrat parties.

I also think that in the last 12 years, we have seen the GOP move away from the neocon persuasion and more toward libertarian positions.

As flawed as the GOP is, it is the best path forward. My view is that we should continue the effort that was started in 2007 and do our best to promote liberty through the GOP. That makes a ton more sense that aligning with the Democratic Socialist party. There is no other viable choice.

Amash has lost his way and I wish him well in his future endeavors. He apparently still needs to learn what Ron Paul did from 1985 to 1995.

Ron Paul asked you to join the GOP provisionally to support his campaign, but he also held a third-party candidate round table event after dropping out of the primaries and endorsed the Constitution party ticket of Baldwin/Allen in the 2008 general election. Ron has not been a champion of personal loyalty to the Republican party or an opponent of working outside it.

[Swordsmyth]

We need to end our liberty society because if we don't then the immigrants will come here and end our liberty society.

Nope, what needs to be done doesn't end liberty.
What you want does.

[Swordsmyth]

On some items it makes sense, for example a simple iron, but on other items it does not, for example food, should America not be self sufficient on food at the very least the food grown in North America so Canada and Mexico. So for example I see Chinese garlic in stores, I think there should be a 3000% tariff on that to lock them out of the market, we need to grow and cultivate our own basic food supply. This actually serves as a protection for us in a number of ways. The number one plant for micro-transistors in the world is in Taiwan. If the Chinese every took that over, America would need to look at building their own. The tech manufacturing required to build 5nm chip sets doesn't spring up over night. Local is better so as a nation you don't relay on others that can hold it over you with political leverage, if they are trying to accomplish something with pressure or even an embargo. The best example of that is when America embargoed Japans oil supply during WW2, it motivated them to strike and awaken the sleeping dragon, that was very self-reliant back then with many factories ready to be converted to fight the war.

I am not arguing you with on things like cars, I own a made in Japan car myself. But it is fools errand to give economic support to developing rival political powers and let them have the advantage in trade that makes you more reliant on them. Trump is not wrong on China and trade and he has seen it for decades, I am glad he is putting pressure on them like no other president before him. Their antics in the South China see need to be pressured at every level and point.

The EU is currently using economic blackmail to force the Swiss to give up their gun rights.

But it can't happen here.

[Mach]

It all seems like a stunt to make sure Trump gets elected, common sense should tell everyone that if he runs Independent after talking all of this stuff, then he will just split up the anti-Trump votes into smaller pockets.

Oh wait, people get pumped up on themselves and block out reality.

[devil21]

Many were Ron Paul supporters before their soft Libertarian leanings. They gathered here and never left.
I will say this again, a conservative Supreme court is the best chance Libertarians have in preserving the basic liberty of the constitution....to that end Trump is the best vehicle to accomplish this, right now. Many posting to RPF understand this, some don't get it or don't care.

It is the Rothschild's BAR legal system, from SCOTUS on down. Just like back in FDR's days, the court is loaded up as needed to direct legal policy as the City of London (where the BAR originates) banker's dictate.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm

[ATruepatriot]

Many were Ron Paul supporters before their soft Libertarian leanings. They gathered here and never left.
I will say this again, a conservative Supreme court is the best chance Libertarians have in preserving the basic liberty of the constitution....to that end Trump is the best vehicle to accomplish this, right now. Many posting to RPF understand this, some don't get it or don't care.

That is because many here now who claim to be libertarians are actually liberal/progressive/socialist propaganda operatives. Note the lack of individual constitutional law and protections that they disregard completely.

[ProBlue33]

That is because many here now who claim to be libertarians are actually liberal/progressive/socialist propaganda operatives. Note the lack of individual constitutional law and protections that they disregard completely.

I think the money dried up and the operatives from 07/08 are gone now.
For example that poster CPU, did his money dry up or was he banned?

[Cleaner44]

Ron Paul asked you to join the GOP provisionally to support his campaign, but he also held a third-party candidate round table event after dropping out of the primaries and endorsed the Constitution party ticket of Baldwin/Allen in the 2008 general election. Ron has not been a champion of personal loyalty to the Republican party or an opponent of working outside it.

I think 3rd parties are great, but until we have preferential voting I don't see the 2 party system being broken. Until then my opinion is that the GOP is the best course to beat back the Marxists. Improving the GOP seems to be the most effective path for improving liberty. No doubt the improvements will be very very slow, but that is better than going backward.

If you prefer to spend your time and money within the Constitution party, I respect your decision even though I suspect it will be fruitless.

[pcosmar]

You are a hipster's hipster. Too cool for a job. Too cool for political parties. Man, you're just a cool dude.

Nope,, I ain't all that. I am an Honest Outlaw.. Been Honest with this Forum in the time I have been here..

I Know who and what I am.. the thing about having a record... it"s Recorded..

I have been pleased to be here with some of the finest minds on the web,,, but am getting damned disgusted by some here.

I have absolutely No problem backing up my speech.
I was Thoroughly disgusted when a Man who should have been defended was ambushed and Murdered,,, and without response of the Gun Owners of that state..

I wanted to Go to Nevada,,, But would have been immediately unwelcome there.

and though I an fully capable of producing a functional arm from scrap,,and have been personally offered $10k in arms over the last few years,,, I remain disarmed..

I ain't starting anything..been trying to defuse,,, but am over that too.

But you will change nothing Federally by voting..
if you could it wouldn't be allowed.

Keep a grip on local politics,, where it matters.

[ATruepatriot]

I think the money dried up and the operatives from 07/08 are gone now.
For example that poster CPU, did his money dry up or was he banned?

They are still here and will always be here. Different moniker but still here.

[ATruepatriot]

Nope,, I ain't all that. I am an Honest Outlaw.. Been Honest with this Forum in the time I have been here..

I Know who and what I am.. the thing about having a record... it"s Recorded..

I have been pleased to be here with some of the finest minds on the web,,, but am getting damned disgusted by some here.

I have absolutely No problem backing up my speech.
I was Thoroughly disgusted when a Man who should have been defended was ambushed and Murdered,,, and without response of the Gun Owners of that state..

I wanted to Go to Nevada,,, But would have been immediately unwelcome there.

and though I an fully capable of producing a functional arm from scrap,,and have been personally offered $10k in arms over the last few years,,, I remain disarmed..

I ain't starting anything..been trying to defuse,,, but am over that too.

But you will change nothing Federally by voting..
if you could it wouldn't be allowed.

Keep a grip on local politics,, where it matters.

We need that mind set in Az bro... You are welcome... Need help getting set up from this end just let me know...

[Anti Federalist]

Not everyone is going to go work for the Space-X program as a physicist. I know the prevailing theory is that manufacturing goes away and the labor pool shifts towards high tech jobs, but that's a fantasy.

What is FAR more likely is that more people out-of-work means more clamoring for welfare programs, as people with absolutely no skin in the game look towards those who are employed in those high tech jobs to provide for them.

If you have a job, you have self-sufficiency. You have something to lose. You have a dog in the fight.

It's not just the industries that are being "protected", it's the workers as well.

I guess if I'm gonna pay for it one way or another, I'd much rather people have some idea of what it means to earn a paycheck in the process.

This is common sense.

The most libertarian president the country has had, supported tariffs.

[UWDude]

I have absolutely No problem backing up my speech.
I was Thoroughly disgusted when a Man who should have been defended was ambushed and Murdered,,, and without response of the Gun Owners of that state..

You talking about the one that was involved with Cliven Bundy, the Cliven Bundy who Trump pardoned?

[pcosmar]

You talking about the one that was involved with Cliven Bundy, the Cliven Bundy who Trump pardoned?

The Hammonds..

Cliven won in Court. as did others.

[UWDude]

The Hammonds..

Cliven won in Court. as did others.

Oh, the Hammonds that Trump pardoned.

Odd he would choose those two to pardon.

Why do you suppose he chose to pardon them?

[pcosmar]

Oh, the Hammonds that Trump pardoned.

Odd he would choose those two to pardon.

Why do you suppose he chose to pardon them?

it is called,,,

throwing the dogs a bone.

A better question would be,,"Why hasn't he Pardoned Jerry Delemus?"

[UWDude]

it is called,,,

throwing the dogs a bone.

what dogs? Nobody really cared about the Hammonds.

He has pardoned or commuted 11 living people, 2 of which were the Hammonds.
Why?

Looking for the ever important militia vote? The left-coast farmer vote? Wanted a little praise on Ron Paul Forums?
Why was he even paying attention? Who brought them to his attention?

[UWDude]

A better question would be,,"Why hasn't he Pardoned Jerry Delemus?"

Go ahead and tell me why you think he pardoned the Hammonds by not Delemus.

[pcosmar]

Go ahead and tell me why you think he pardoned the Hammonds by not Delemus.

Throwing a Bone to the Oregon Proud Boys,,and the other Alt Right that were recruited and trained by the Imported Ukrainian Nazis.

Jerry was a Republican.. Trump isn't.