Eventually the free-traitors will be defeated, the Republican Party for most of its history was protectionist.

Duncan Hunter 2008.

In other words: nothing illegal about it.

Having said that, Washington for one did believe that the US shouldn’t become part of any permanent alliance.

Having said that we’ve got to keep in mind that he was a live at a time that the US was weak (compared to the Great Powers, such as France and Britain).

For people who claim to be motivated by a pure reading of the Constitution, many of the Paulistas are sure ignorant of what the Constitution actually does and does not say.

In a word, ILLEGAL. Paul supports the law is the bottom line.

Paul is an expert at playing both sides of the fence — a masterful politician at that. He can vote against every free trade agreement because they aren’t pure enough for him. Thus he can tell everyone he is pro-free trade while actually voting against the only measures that are opening up trade. He’s actually a protectionist in practice.

And the way his mindless cult followers argue is bizarree. Look at the claim that Cato is neo-con as an example of a clearly moronic statement. I notice the cult followers label any critic of Paul a “neo-con”. Cato has been strongly anti-war from the beginning and still is. Calling someone a “neo-con” is not a rebutall its an evasion.

Longtime libertarian activist Wendy McElroy is anti-Paul so the Classically Liberal blog.

JimBob misquotes Friedman as do the anti-immigration Paulists. Friedman said “legal immigration” doesn’t make sense with welfare but that illegal immigration, which disqualifies one for welfare (contrary to what the naboobs on the Right think) is beneficial. I was there and heard him state his position at a lecture at Stanford.

Pauls nativistic impulses, his conspiracy paranoia and the like simply are NOT libertarian. Tell him to go f… off and leave the libertarians alone.

Let me dispell this myth with an analogy. Two companies, AAA and BBB, decide to trade. Both companies have products to sell and purchase from each other. But AAA must pay a tax on imports which effectively raises the cost of BBB’s goods to a non-competitive level. Should BBB be required to pay a tax on AAA’s products that raise the cost of AAA’s goods to a non-competitive level in return?

No. The tax that is forced upon the consumers of AAA by the government of AAA should not be forced upon the customers of BBB. Yet this is precisely the effect of tarrif wars. You are advocating to allow a foreign nation to pass their tax rates along to US suppliers and consequently allowing foreign nations to pass their taxes on to US consumers.

Even easier, if someone refuses to purchase from you, should you refuse to purchase from them? Of course not. If they are offering goods at the cheapest rate, then you should purchase from them regardless of their willingness to purchase from you. If individuals only bought goods from companies that were willing to purchase their labor, we would all be poor. When countries enact trade restrictions raising the cost of goods for their citizens, we should not enact trade restrictions raising the cost of goods for our citizens in return. To argue for anything else is to argue that American business’ are not able to compete without government subsidies. American businesses are the most productive and competitive in the world. Foreign governments enact trade restrictions because they cannot compete with us, we should not be confused into thinking that they are harming us - they are harming themselves, and we should not harm ourselves to get even.

As for jobs, there will always be as many jobs as there are people. The only limits to the number of jobs is government efforts to tax or regulate jobs out of existence. The minimum wage eliminates all jobs below a minimum threshold of productivity, tariffs eliminate all jobs that result from an increased supply of goods and services, and government jobs eliminate private jobs that allow for the accrual of capital through profit - decreasing future increases in productivity and employment.

If the United States had no tariffs, we would be flooded with cheap goods, and companies would require millions of workers, shippers, salesmen, engineers, and marketers to transform, sell, and distribute their products. Raising the cost of goods, means less can afford them, which means not as many people are required to transform, sell, and distribute them. This means less jobs. This is the road to poverty.