You could not be farther from the truth in characterizing my views as redistributionist, and doing so simply does not advance the validity of your arguments. My wish that individuals living in Central America enjoy prosperity from their own productivity is not redistributionist, but free market capitalism. You are arguing for high-tax, high-tariff protectionism that prevents Americans from buying goods they desire, and preventing Central Americans from doing the same. Exactly how do you think you can come off as a protector of Constitutional rights?
Wish away. I could wish for Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as well, and Peace on Earth. We all wish prosperity to everybody. Fine. But your wishes, needing to be implemented by another erosion of the U.S. Constitution with yet another arm of a supra-national authority, by "agreement" that is not even legitimately implemented by treaty...is a wish that is not permissable. E.g., Not over My Constitution, you don't, buddy! Paws off!
You are arguing for high-tax, high tariff protectionism that prevents Americans from buying goods they desire.
B'zzzt. Wrong.
First remember the whole point of the Constitution, it is not extremist libertarian flap-doodle.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Revenue tariffs did all of that: Promoted union. Uniformity promoted the establishment of justice. Internal tariffs were banned. We created our own INTERNAL free market. The trade promoted domestic tranquility, and funded the common defense, and promoted the general welfare. And the evidence is that they indeed did secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Certainly the Founders saw no contradiction whatsoevever in funding goverment with duties, imposts and so on, although you must. I think the intellectual fault is not with them, therefore, but you.
Second, I favor a net increase of true liberty. Actually, I favor eliminating US Income taxes, federal, state, personal and corporate. And capital gains. I favor repealing the 16th Amendment if necessary to safeguard a switch over then to two basic revenue streams: A national sales tax of approximately 15% Constitutionally limited, except where Congress officially declares War. And a 25% revenue tariff on ALL imports. China would receive special treatment. Revoke MFN, and impose the standard Smoot-Hawley 50% tariff. The net effect of these would be to tax consumption, especially bad consumption, i.e., Chinese and other foreign goods, encouraging return of production back to the U.S. without governmental edicts, letting the "market decide."
Under this governmental financing approach, a lot of people would be able to actually save money, and increase investment activity. With no income tax, the primary lever for Congress to squander OUR monies on various social agenda through the tax code would go away. This would be the most immense restoration of personal liberty since the Revolution. It would shrink government. The cost of paying your taxes by buying goods is well worth it. And if you save your money, even you could afford to buy goods from China, if you are foolish enough to still want to.
Now let's turn to the last part of that sentance of yours, I.e., :
"prevents Americans Buying the goods they desire." What a load of B.S. Most people buy what is on the shelves. If they are seriously interested in a particular brand or a source, and want it badly enough (i.e. "desire", ha!) then they can and somehow will afford to pay for it. I "desire" to have an F-22 Raptor in my garage, but that "desire" is not good enough. Even were I to have a big enough wallet, that isn't good enough in that case. The government's policy of not letting that technology too broadly loose protects our national security. And you have failed to show how we need to subvert our legal system and constitution in order to make things "freer". What products can't we buy right now from any of these latin american countries? Name one. And what consumer goods can't they buy from us (of the diminishing number we still manufacture)?
And then contemplate the redistributionary impacts, where a third of the dis-employed are still, after many years still making less than they were prior to the NAFTA-impacted job losses? How much stuff are they able to buy? Your side: [Crickets chirping, punctuated by a caustic, Get A BETTER Job loafer!] Then you come up with this insinuation, which you better look in the mirror first before you again lodge it against anyone defending this country:
Exactly how do you think you can come off as a protector of Constitutional rights?
Based on that animus in your inquiry, I believe its fair to surmise how you would regard the Founders of the Republic AND the Constitution itself. George Washington favored revenue tariffs. Alexander Hamilton favored revenue tariffs. John Jay favored revenue tariffs. James Madison favored revenue tariffs. And Thomas Jefferson, who originally opposed them, did a 180-degree turn after he saw how crucial it was to have a broad range of domestic manufactures, and ability.
So since I have strong reason to believe I have been faithful to the views of the Founders, and I actually read the Constitution from time to time, I would hope that you would change your premature, and erroneous, conclusions as to who is the greater proponent of Liberty here.
So look not for the speck in my eye, but the log in yours.