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] 5 6 ... 11 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Read 953 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #30 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:08am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 9:32pm:
And controlling the dollar supply is not force. The Federal Reserve is a private business.
Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #31 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:13am
Print Post  
yamcha wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 9:51pm:
Yes, I know that but most people do not.  the Fed intentionally disguises itself as a government entity.  They are no more federal than FedEx.  Do you think this is fraud?
When you pass a law that gives a bank the power to set interest rates for the entire economy and create money as they see fit, it is no longer a private bank. When the people who control that bank are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress, they are not just businessmen running a bank.

What you are saying about the Fed would be fraud if you benefited financially from saying it.

When our government intentionally deceives us, is that fraud?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #32 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:17am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 8th, 2019 at 11:00pm:
The official stance of the NAP...
The NAP is a principle, a statement that it's wrong to initiate aggression.

Principles can't have stances. People can interpret principles differently, but a principle as simple as the NAP (It's wrong to initiate aggression) can't really be interpreted.

What you keep doing is giving differing meanings to the term "aggression".
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #33 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:25am
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 and good for maintaining the free-market?
Fractional reserve banking is necessary. Banks couldn't make any money without it except for storing valuables in their vault.

A central bank can be very useful to a government and an economy, but central banks under government control have consistently proved to be disastrous.

Paul Warburg's original plan for a U.S. central bank was to be controlled by a board of directors chosen by democratic methods by bankers and consisting of bankers. He envisioned it as operating to prevent widespread bank failures caused by panics and bank runs by loaning money to banks that were essentially sound and well managed but temporarily insolvent, acting with expedience to restore confidence.

It would probably work. It wouldn't have any power to create fiat money.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #34 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:36am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 9th, 2019 at 9:09pm:
You need to get your head out of tyrannical concepts. The economy doesn't belong to anyone. It's there to be exploited by whosoever can best exploit it.
A free economy by definition is one that is not controlled by government. A society of free people operating in a free economy are free to try to do the best they can.

The sense of the word "exploit" that applies in a free economy is "use", and yes, anyone is free to use "the economy", which as I'm sure you know is just the agglomerated sum of all the economic activity of individual people and businesses.

Anyone is free to exploit a free economy by starting a business and hiring people and selling products and services (or by taking a job), or by providing capital to someone who wants to do that etc.

In one sense, buying all the good things that a free economy makes available is also exploiting the economy.

Of course government restrictions on the freedom to use (participate in) the economy generally give some people a better chance of "exploiting" the economy than others, which is the definition of a government managed or controlled economy.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jacob
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 173
Joined: Aug 3rd, 2019
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #35 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:56am
Print Post  
Jeff to the rescue!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobK71
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 899
Joined: Jun 12th, 2015
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #36 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 12th, 2019 at 9:25pm:
Whenever I have a complaint, it doesn't matter how much it makes the world terrible, like all speech being controlled by huge crony corporations, I get slammed because the thing I'm complaining about is fine under the NAP. It doesn't matter how much crony money Google gets. It. is. a. private. business.

So why does the same exact argument that defeats me cleanly not work on you?

Oh, right. Libertarians don't believe in fairness. So principles only apply when they're convenient for libertarians.


'Private business' means nothing in this context.  Within this argument, we might as well lump the Department of Motor Vehicles into 'private businesses.'  (Each employee operates in the free labor market and happens to ally with the state for now.)  Some part of almost everything is private.

The key is, is the market the business operates in truly free, or is it partially controlled by the state?

As far as I'm concerned, the NAP is dead.  Do not confuse what treatment you get for your views with their correctness.  Always argue for your views on their own merits.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 12th, 2019 at 9:25pm:
Actually you get made fun of for the conspiracy theory stuff you say about elites.


I stand by all of my conspiracy theories.  If you find any of them wrong, please let me know.  I have not been accused of championing an amoral system, which, let's be honest, you have been.

Even if I was the smartest person in the room, I would be very reluctant to say anything that I'm not able to defend from first principles, if need be.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 45089
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #37 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 2:09pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am:
As far as I'm concerned, the NAP is dead.
I'm sure you don't mean it's a bad or irrelevant principle? Just that criminals and governments don't follow it?
  

"Free hate speech"
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 #38 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 8:56pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 7:17am:
The NAP is a principle, a statement that it's wrong to initiate aggression.


Yes, and it's pretty much the same as the Golden Rule.

Would you say that it is identical to the Platinum Rule?


PLATINUM RULE DEFINITIOON

The Platinum Rule is widely considered to be a more sensitive version of The Golden Rule. Simply stated, it tells us to “Treat others as they wish to be treated.” To do so, we must learn to view the world as others see it, to adapt our communication style to their behavioral style, to lead others in a way that motivates them to want to follow, to sell in a way that makes it comfortable for them to buy, and to embrace our differences while admiring the strengths in others.
The Platinum Rule
www.platinumrule.com/whatistheplatinumrule.html


Nah.  There are people who want to be waited on hand and foot.


What about the Silver Rule?

"The silver rule is a variation and somewhat an inversion of the golden rule. The silver rule states "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10468
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Reply #39 - Aug 13th, 2019 at 9:09pm
Print Post  
BobK71 wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am:
'Private business' means nothing in this context.  Within this argument, we might as well lump the Department of Motor Vehicles into 'private businesses.'  (Each employee operates in the free labor market and happens to ally with the state for now.)  Some part of almost everything is private.


I'm going to have to retract my statement that the Federal Reserve is a private business. Apparently I was incorrect. Not that I know why I was incorrect, just that I was.

BobK71 wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am:
As far as I'm concerned, the NAP is dead.  Do not confuse what treatment you get for your views with their correctness.  Always argue for your views on their own merits.


Except that any time I say anything, I get refuted cleanly, so I change my view. Then I say what was used to refute me, and that gets refuted just as easily.

BobK71 wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am:
I stand by all of my conspiracy theories.  If you find any of them wrong, please let me know.  I have not been accused of championing an amoral system, which, let's be honest, you have been.


Actually nothing you've said, I haven't said before. I was just proven wrong each time by superior libertarian arguments about rights.

BobK71 wrote on Aug 13th, 2019 at 10:56am:
Even if I was the smartest person in the room, I would be very reluctant to say anything that I'm not able to defend from first principles, if need be.


You're very lucky you don't get dogpiled because your first principles are wrong. Since your first principles seem to be something other than the NAP, I know they're indefensible.

Every time I see someone argue from what appears to be first principles, I adopt those first principles and try to argue from them myself. When I'm refuted (which I always am) I know that either my reasoning or the first principles must be faulty, though libertarians will never say which... or why. Why should they? Their unassailable arguments like "you don't understand the free market" rely on no one knowing what's what... but them.
  

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] 5 6 ... 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