Skip to comments.Fireworks: Man At McCain Town Hall Tells Him "I'd Have You Arrested For Treason"
Posted on 09/07/2013 5:21:25 AM PDT by maggiefEdited on 09/07/2013 7:47:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Nonsense. I make the case that local governments have the obligation to represent their citizens with the citizens to deal with the consequences. Governments therefore need the latitude to do so, otherwise known as "sovereignty." There is nothing about direct collective control of private property in that regard, but there is implicit the power to structure markets pursuant to the rule of law. The more limited is the scope of government the more likely it is that they as individuals will be forced by natural law competition to make concessions to what you regard as "free trade." You just don't like that so you want irresponsibility uniformly mandated worldwide, effectively negating representation worldwide.
You all are essentially statists. You believe the individual is subservient to the state.
Accordingly, you are a corporate collectivist and a globalist, who have done more to damage the rights of individual natural persons to manage property than anyone. Why? Because the power to control the state is the power to control property. This is why the tax-exempt "charitable" foundations of major stockholders are the principal SPONSORS of regulatory government. Hence, you are the statist, as is evidenced by non-representative global governance in the WTO and other illegal "trade agreements" (which should be treaties). You deny the right to free association, except for stockholders hiding behind a legal fiction as "persons" in order to limit their accountability. It's a race to the bottom.
Protectionism denies freedom when it is an act of the state. Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.
Your definition of "protectionism" is subjective. I believe that a nation that intends to defend itself needs an industrial infrastructure. Apparently you do not.
Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.
Ideological mouthing without comprehension. It is an ENFORCED "absence" of individual responsibility, which is the flip side of subsidy. It is an ENFORCED "interdependency," which is in reality little more than DEPENDENCY. I prefer "independence," for without it there is no freedom.
He left out the hanged part....
Say what you will about Bob Dole as a presidential candidate, at least he took the admirable action of resigning his Senate seat when he ran. Too bad McLame couldn't have followed Dole's example, or Kerry for that matter. But it's all about maintaining power for these clowns.
If you want them to be treaties subject to senate ratification instead of trade agreements then I am OK with that.
Ideally there would be a constitutional amendment (never going to happen) limiting (not eliminating - think North Korea and Iran) the power of the federal government to impose protectionist tariffs on any foreign entity. You would call this unilateral surrender. I call it “consumer surplus” which benefits the American consumer. If foreign entities subsidize the goods we buy then so be it.