False. I believe that when a foreign nation uses prohibitive manipulations against our nation's manufactures, it is appropriate for us to fight fire with fire. I still believe in trade and commerce. I would be prohibiting (i.e., countering) their advantage obtained from their manipulations.
Your entire extended attempt to try and rescue your debunked misuse of George Washington fails... And you know why? George Washington believed strongly in protective tariffs too. You take his statements out of that context, they are practically meaningless and you derive a false understanding. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington saw eye to eye on these things. And you show your true colors against both Hamilton, and George Washington who you misuse...
P.S. You clearly haven't studied Alexander Hamilton, or your disdain would have long ago vanished. He was a true Revolutionary War hero. A dedicated slavery abolitionist. An economic visionary. Assuming you are an American.
And the guilt trip about usurpation you try to lay on him is really not one that would have been anticipated in 1796. The Communist Party and its covert tentacles dedicated to the very usurpations you allude to (from the Bill of Rights, etc) was not yet in being...or even conceivable then. In his day, precedent had a real palpable weight in the court rooms he argued in. Today, as the shyters in black robes demonstrate, it is a non-factor...to be given lip-service only for the theatrical benefit of for the unwashed masses.
Using the government to prohibit trade isn't extending commercial relations, it's restricting them. You think because the Chinese government hobbles the choices of their consumers that the U.S. should emulate them. You do not address the effect of government restricting U.S. consumer choices on the standard of living of those consumers at all.
I still believe in trade and commerce.
You believe in government managed trade. Your adulation of Hamilton (and government managing trade) exposes you as a statist. You assume that the Chinese communists have a superior grasp of production and resource allocation, and further assume that their decision to provide consumers with subsidized goods is a harm to those consumers.
I would be prohibiting (i.e., countering) their advantage obtained from their manipulations.
What you would counter is the advantage conferred upon American consumers with an advantage conferred to whatever businesses feted Capitol Hill from K street..
You clearly haven't studied Alexander Hamilton, or your disdain would have long ago vanished. He was a true Revolutionary War hero.
He was a 'revolutionary' who wanted to replace the British King with an American one. He was a monarchist at heart, and mercantilist in thought. He lobbied for a central bank and encouraged the American government's indebtedness. I know plenty about him to not care for him. I prefer Henry and Jefferson to the Hamiltonians.
And the guilt trip about usurpation you try to lay on him is really not one that would have been anticipated in 1796. The Communist Party and its covert tentacles dedicated to the very usurpations you allude to (from the Bill of Rights, etc) was not yet in being...or even conceivable then.
The usurpations were certainly conceived of, the Federalist Papers exist as an effort to refute those concerns. The fact remains if the Hamiltonian quest for a stronger federal government resulted in the usurpations he dismissed. The Jeffersonians were correct.