[1rudeboy]

As I alluded to earlier, your typical protectionist believes that the $2 you save buying a cheaper shirt simply evaporates. And since it is vapor anyway, your typical protectionist sees nothing wrong with forcing you to spend the $2 on a more expensive shirt.

[palmer]

your typical protectionist believes that the $2 you save buying a cheaper shirt simply evaporates.

I must not be a typical protectionist.

[general_re]

As I alluded to earlier, your typical protectionist believes that the $2 you save buying a cheaper shirt simply evaporates.

Either that, or I'd just piss it away anyway, so why not take it from me and let someone else spend it?

I figure that ought to work in reverse, anyway. That money I would have spent on the shirt is also just vapor, so how about if I just make them give me a free shirt? Why isn't anyone clamoring for laws like that? Think of how much consumers would benefit by not having to spend on shirts any more. Why, surely that would improve the economy - lots more domestic consumers than there are domestic shirtmakers, after all...