Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
Reagan didn't eliminate restrictions on the importation of heroin. Is that "socialistic" too?
2. That's right - NO TARIFFS OR DUTIES!
So all tariffs are "protective."
NewSpeak. The language of Reagan haters everywhere.
Oh no, that would be communistic; if he eliminated the restrictions THEN it would be socialistic. And it was Marxist that he didn’t legalize prostitution, and fascist that he didn’t give free rides to space aboard the space shuttles.
Let’s see, anything we’ve left out from your paranoid ramblings?
Don't know where protective comes into the equation; six definitions from a wide variety of references all say that free trade excludes the use of tariffs - the reason for the usage is moot.
So you tell me - what source do you have that says tariffs are a sign of free trade?
Or have you changed your story?
That was explicit language in definitions that you just posted posted.
Are you contending that all tariffs are "protective"? Or are you just playing fast and loose with your rationalizations?
A question for the voice of experience: Is hands on facilitation of Chinese slave labor communistic?
Why do we need a term at all?
You described a scenario that may not even exist (loose quotes below):
• tariffs - one method that the government uses to achieve what it calls an equitable social outcomeI added the emphasis because that is where your questions puzzle me. I don't see tariffs being used for those purposes. So, if we must come up with an "istic" or "ism" label to fit your suggested scenarios, why not tell me what tariffs fit those definitions, or give me an example of such a case? Otherwise, don't we just have the government performing its constitutional duty under the commerce clause? In which case I would call it "regulation" not "intervention."• increased government intervention in the social sphere in order to achieve equitable outcomes (I assume you were still referring to tariffs here)
And remember, this all started because I was told in no uncertain terms that "managed trade" = "socialism" which is wrong in all cases.
Yup.
A lien is not ownership. A lien is security for a debt.
It gives no ownership or control of the product, unless you don't pay your debt.
Same as if you don't pay the IRS and they file a lien on your property.
Is the IRS fascist? Well... you may have me there, LOL.
But it ain't socialism
Yes, Reagan believed in free trade but he also said we should not be free trade patsy's (as we are with China).
Clearly, you need to reread the thread.
Read the rest of my post. I answered your question.
Now, will you answer mine?
If we don't need a term at all, then why was the term "socialistic" such a bother? And no, I will not answer your question, for the above reason. I've been beaten over the head for close to three days for the words I use. So let's agree to some, or go play video games.
No, not at all. I can’t very well define something if you don’t give me an example.
Sheesh!
And, besides, I did give you a label — “regulation”
As to video games... nah. But here’s some good music for ya:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2250222/posts?page=67#67
You know, the hardest part about my day when I’m over here is that my whipping arm gets tired after a few hours of issuing beatings, and if you’re not careful you’ll twist an ankle when walking on their backs.
Not to mention that the cost of gruel has increased 2% and that means I had to cut rations 5% (you know, for good measure).
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go watch a few dozen more get shackled to their benches, and then start their 60 minute daily Mao adoration!
OK, we’ll call tariffs “fascist” then. I’m not sure that improves their position much, though!
And we have 100% agreement about the IRS...:)
Do ya have a Ronald Reagan dartboard in the recreation room?
I wouldn't call them that.
And we have 100% agreement about the IRS...:)
We'll leave it there, then! LOL
Wall Street Journal
MAY 13, 2009, 1:34 PM ET
“General Motors plans to start importing Chinese-built vehicles into the U.S. in 2011, according to an outline the auto maker has submitted to members of the U.S. Congress.”
They should call them Obamabiles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.