Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Read 948 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #10 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:00pm
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 10:45pm:
Ok, so you agree that they are not being transparent but they should not be punished for fraud unless someone feels defrauded.  Fair enough.  Do you think fraud can be an aggression?


The official stance of the NAP is that fraud is aggression, but that it shouldn't be used as a catchall for deception or lying. I agree with this article:

https://mises.org/wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-types-aggr...
Quote:
The case of fraud is tricky too. I believe the failure to carefully define what fraud is, and to specify exactly when and why it is a type of aggression, leads to confusion. For example, some of my esteemed Austrian colleagues seem to think fractional reserve banking is "inherently fraudulent," and therefore, not merely uneconomic, but also one that should be legally prohibited. In my view, fractional reserve banking is economic nonsense, but not necessarily fraudulent.

The problem is in most people's minds "fraud" basically means misrepresenting the truth—i.e., lying. But clearly merely lying is not a rights violation. I think imprecise use of "fraud" permits it to be used to arrive at unlibertarian conclusions.

The theory of contract espoused here demonstrates that fraud is properly viewed as a type of theft. Suppose Karen buys a bucket of apples from Ethan for $20. Ethan represents the things in the bucket as being apples, in fact, as apples of a certain nature, that is, as being fit for their normal purpose of being eaten. Karen conditions the transfer of title to her $20 on Ethan's not knowingly engaging in 'fraudulent' activities, like pawning off rotten apples. If the apples are indeed rotten and Ethan knows this, then he knows that he does not receive ownership of or permission to use the $20, because the condition 'no fraud' is not satisfied. He is knowingly in possession of Karen's $20 without her consent, and is, therefore, a thief.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 644
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #11 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:04pm
Print Post  
Oppo,

thanks for the quote. 

So do you think the Fed and fractional reserve banking is good for America and good for maintaining the free-market?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #12 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:15pm
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:04pm:
Oppo,

thanks for the quote. 

So do you think the Fed and fractional reserve banking is good for America


No.

yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:04pm:
good for maintaining the free-market?


Yes. Because they are doing nothing wrong. The moment you use force to make them stop, you have destroyed the free market.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 644
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #13 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:20pm
Print Post  
Ok, if they are doing nothing wrong then why aren't they good for America if the free-market is good for America?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #14 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:31pm
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:20pm:
Ok, if they are doing nothing wrong then why aren't they good for America if the free-market is good for America?


I didn't say the free market was good for America. I said it was moral.

It might be the case that murdering someone could save a million, or even a whole country. It would still be wrong. It would still be murder.

Just like acting against the Federal Reserve is still force.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 644
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #15 - Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:46pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:31pm:
I didn't say the free market was good for America. I said it was moral.

It might be the case that murdering someone could save a million, or even a whole country. It would still be wrong. It would still be murder.

Just like acting against the Federal Reserve is still force.


But isn't this reverse Vulkan thinking?  The needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many?

Don't you think the Fed is the aggressor by having those who try to opt-out of its system punished?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2029
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #16 - Aug 9th, 2019 at 4:09am
Print Post  

n their classic work, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, 1962, p. 250, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock stated that:

"...the simple fact is, of course, that in normal trade all parties gain;  there exist mutual gains from trade.    The great contribution of Adam Smith lay in his popularization of this simple point..."

And yet, Trump is now promoting protectionism.

It should be pointed out that many economists believe that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 exacerbated what may have been a typical blip in the business cycle and help promote The Great Depression.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #17 - Aug 9th, 2019 at 10:23am
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:46pm:
But isn't this reverse Vulkan thinking?  The needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many?


No. I don't believe in any such nonsense. If a lot of people benefit and one loses, I don't care. If a lot of people lose and one benefits, I still don't care. The idea is not to aggress.

yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:46pm:
Don't you think the Fed is the aggressor by having those who try to opt-out of its system punished?


No. Only the government that punishes them is the aggressor, and only if they punish using force.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
yamcha
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 644
Location: Southern California
Joined: Jul 5th, 2019
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #18 - Aug 9th, 2019 at 10:30am
Print Post  
Then you would have a hard time getting a date Oppo.  Aggression includes micro-aggression and it is almost always the man who is the aggressor since he is the one initiating.  So how could he ever know if what is about to come out of his mouth is going to cause discomfort?  What should he do?  Sit at home with his hands cupped over his crotch area and watch Star Trek?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #19 - Aug 9th, 2019 at 10:34am
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 9th, 2019 at 10:30am:
Aggression includes micro-aggression


That depends on what you mean by microaggression. Unwanted touching probably qualifies as aggression, but words do not.

I've never had a problem getting mates, and I'm not grabby. I have a problem getting them to stay, but that's another matter.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy