[DugwayDuke]

Yes, tarriffs were authorized by the Constitution from the beginning to fund the federal government. Yes, slavery was also authorized by the Constitution from the beginning. Just because something was enacted by the founders does not necessarily justify it's existance.

You go beyond funding the federal government by consumption taxes when you state your intention is to protect jobs, not fund the government. Forcing someone to buy the product of another when other cheaper products are available is a form of slavery regardless of how many former presidents advocated it.

The issue of when imported goods become my property is irrelevent. The issue is the money I make within the US. It is always my property and when you tell me how I can spend it, you have appropriated my property and my labor. That, sir, is slavery.

[harpseal]

The issue of when imported goods become my property is irrelevent. The issue is the money I make within the US. It is always my property and when you tell me how I can spend it, you have appropriated my property and my labor. That, sir, is slavery.

No more than any other tax since a strong economy is necessary for national defense and since a protective tarriff helps provide that strong economy your disagreement with the means to that end because you dislike that some others may reap some benefit is unreasonable. No it is nowhere near being slavery any more than state property taxes are slavery.

[harpseal]

Another point to consider is the fact that merely doing a revenue tarriff to be the primary source of funding for the Federal government would put the tarriff rates so high that merely a protective tarriff would seem a reduction. The federal government needs funding in order to maintain itself. At present the majority of that funding comes from the corporate and personal income tax structure. This would be far better replaced with sales tax and tarriff funding.