[DugwayDuke]

No, it is not unreasonable to consider a tarriff enacted to protect jobs as a form of slavery. Consider this example.

Worker Paul decides his standard of living is too low because the price he can charge for his services a ceiling from overseas markets. Worker Paul meets with his CongressCritter Bill and proposes that Politician Bill enact a tarriff or Worker Paul will never, ever, vote for him again. Politician Bill enacts that tarriff raising the price of the ovrseas products and the ceiling Worker Paul can charge for his services and Worker Paul is very happy. He can now raise the price for his services and take that long deserved holiday to the Bahamas.

Now, prior to this tarriff, other Worker Peter bought the goods made by Paul from the overseas market since these goods were cheaper. Worker Peter was, therefore, able to buy more services or spend the money on services of another type. In fact, other Worker Peter usually took his family on vacation with the money he saved. But, now other Worker Peter has to pay a higher price for these goods and he no longer has enough money to take his family on vacation.

Now, the question is, should Polician Bill rob Peter so Paul can have a vacation in the Bahamas? And, what right does Politician Bill and Worker Paul have to take Peter's property? Is Peter a slave? If not, why not?

[harpseal]

Your worker Paul scenario has absolutely nothing to do with reality. There is no form of slavery with protective tarriffs they are a totally legitimate form of raising revenue for the Federal government. Worker Paul is not earning a sufficient wage to start witrh because Peter has convonced hos congressman to tax Paul's endeavors via an income tax and other regulations.