[neutrino]

You have not demonstrated that one principle, long-settled and still good law, that rural landowners split the cost of a fence between two adjoining properties (the underlying argument being that both benefit from the fence, and that public policy should promote the construction of fences between properties in rural areas), is similar to the other principle of imposing a cost on one party for the benefit of an otherwise unrelated party, by simple reason that both parties hypothetically benefit from an amorphous "protection" of general economic activity.

The "amorphous protection" you so easily dismiss is, in fact, the general economic well-being of the nation. The relationship is more abstract than the shared fence, but no less real. All of which you realize perfectly well.

One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

Well, of course free traitors are bad. Everyone knows that! As for lawyers, there are a great many good ones; it's unfortunate that their reputation is sullied by the few bad ones.

[1rudeboy]

The "amorphous protection" you so easily dismiss is, in fact, the general economic well-being of the nation. The relationship is more abstract than the shared fence, but no less real. All of which you realize perfectly well.

Easily dismiss? I recognize that a targeted tariff, for example, benefits the targeted industry or firm. Why do you so easily dismiss that the same tariff has a cost borne by the same folks you are "protecting?" Thats why I refer to the "protection" as amorphous--ask a confectioner what he thinks of sugar tariffs. Do you honestly believe he will simply shrug his shoulders and claim, "it's for the greater good?"