Posted on 01/24/2006 11:31:04 AM PST by Marxbites
The transaction was "procedure for puppy." I suppose it can be pointed out that medical school costs money, and dogs consume food, but that has about as much relevance to the transaction as your contentions, which mean zip.
How about this offer? I buy you a dictionary, and you read it.
How often must free transactions occur before a free market is created?
I NEVER said we HAVE free trade. Far from it - we have Govt intervetionism to the nth degree. Did you read the entire article? It was the main point.
Where did you read that the point was that we DID have free markets??? $50 says you won't find it. The article in fact rails against things, especially socialism, that pervert free markets and make them un-free.
Please explain how the answer to the question:
"What is the Free Market"
is a myth?
The right answer is that in free markets, parties are not coerced, i.e. exchange is voluntary.
What was your point? If Govt kept it's cottonpickers out of the markets, as it should, we would have free markets. Tarrifs and regulations make it un-free - they pervert the price signals individuals rely on in consideration of exchange, no?
I think we misunderstood each other - but I will gladly defer if you can pursuade me.
The poster who said we NEEDED regulation was the main one I was trying to refute.
Boys - I think we are talking at crossed purposes.
Is it agreed that free markets are preferable??
Is it agreed that our markets are less than free but should be??
I think we all agree.
No one but Rightwhale thinks hampering free markets with regulation is preferable - right?
Well, the Commerce Clause comes to mind.
Everyone knows the Founders included the power to tarrif for revenue - but were they sophisticated enough to realize that trading partners they knew would just do the same, made prices higher for citizens of both countries? Maybe.
And if you are trying to say the Founders prefered Govt interventionism, I don't believe it. Maybe I missed wsomething - wasn't the whole point of liberty to have the least Govt intervention in men's lives primary?
You're no match for Rothbard - you sound like a statist - CFR plant maybe??
Right on the money!!!!!!
You go Boy!
While, to me, the Hamiltonian system of tariffs was "ppropriate in 1790 it is not today for many reasons."
I agree with this 100%
That's right - I didn't say otherwise.
Unions use the "fair trade" mantra to mean importers workers NEED the same safety and other regulations we have to protect themselves. They, like most all Dems, don't give two squats about third world workers, or they wouldn't be in favor of raising their costs of production that leads to less employment just like artificial minimum wages.
The First Federal Revenue Law
On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports....
...A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")
Just as I thought! Thanks.
I think we all realize that some revenue is required for defense and the treasury to coin money, travel for treaties, etc.
At 5% I think we Americans would much prefer that - and it would have kept Govt it's constitutional size. Imagine the compounded intergenerational wealth we would have had otherwise.
Now we have the producers paying disproportionally for entitlements that disincentivises the non-producers the politricksters buy their votes from.
Nothing about it conforms to Equal Protection, and the FDR SCOTUS reinterpreted the Gen'l Welfare clause so they could tax and spend on whatever they pleased and they did.
Government has to be strong enough to protect freedom which in the Real world means it has to be plenty strong since there are numerous enemies of that idea. They range from despotic nations through terrorist groups to international criminal organizations with resources superior to those of ALL the police forces of the world.
Pollyannaish views of the world are fine for academia but in the world of realpolitick quite tiresome.
Sadly, the pragmatism that underlies realpolitik is merely a repetition of "The end justifies the means". RJ Rummel's work documents the sad result of state power. Good intentions will not improve the outcome of evil mechanisms. A strong government must, by its very nature, throttle freedom.
And something I said makes you think I am against having the strongest military in the world? Negatory!
And besides, what's that got to do with this corrupt, socialist/fascist, interventionist, and redistributive bloated pig of a Govt so deftly achieved by the progressives and their "philanthropies" copying Marx inspired Bismark's socialist Germany, as were Hitler & Uncle Joe. I'll bet it was Rockefeller's CFR that got Slick to appease N. Korea with nuke capacity, and also nuke hardened guidance chips from Loral to the Chicoms, who thanks to Jimmah, another CFR puppet, now controls the Panama canal.
A strong defense is all I really care about Govt doing, and little else that the states can't already, and should do, for themselves.
I detest 95% of Marx loving academics. And if I had to point to one well known individual I consider myself most like, it would be David Horowitz.
And if I recall correctly you before tried to dazzle me with your own academic credentials and monetary astuteness.
"ALL the police forces of the world." state your source for this tidbit please.
I already served my 4 years, and you're Pollyanna insult is WAY off the mark, Nancy.
Boy and howdy!
Even his offensive handle exudes presumtuous elitism.
A plant by the statists?
L
You shut them all up - darn!!!
Thanks for that great post - my gut told me I was on track from the beginning.
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.