NationStates Jolt Archive

I like you. You're silly. :)

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.

Yay, American industry gets even more inefficient and uncompetitive!

Yay, American industry gets even more inefficient and uncompetitive!

QFT.

Yay, American industry gets even more inefficient and uncompetitive!What good has efficiency ever done us? Or anyone for that matter?

Didn't Alexander Hamilton also advocate a central taxation system and a national debt as necessary to the economic health of the nation?

I always get a kick out of the people who say "tyranny of the IRS" despite the point that it was an Amendment not only passed by Congress but also approved by the states, showing strong support across the nation for income tax.

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.

Firstly, Alexander Hamilton was a centralizer to the bone, with his excise taxes, public land policy, inflationism and special privileges for banks. He even thought that America should become an empire while others were advocating non-interventionism. He was little better than Marx.

And, BTW, the only right way to balance the budget is to cut spending. Shifting the tax burden from one place to another will still act like a ball and chain on the economy, regardless of where you put it.

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.

First of all, this suggestion is just plain suicidal, espescially with how fragile hte american economy is right now. The death of international trade will not help anyone. Making tariffs high enough to pay for the government's operation would mean that no one in the US would buy anything from elsewhere, thus depriving you of your revenue source.

Secondly, it takes a deliberate misunderstanding of Marxism to conclude that a graduated income tax has any relevance to Marxist thought. It was only mentioned once, in the Communist Manifesto, and by the time of Capital, it was completely forgotten from Marxian literature. Finally, in Marx's last notable work, the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx explicitly criticizes the German Social Democratic Party for their stance on taxation.

Woodrow Wilson was many things. A Marxist he most certainly was not. Really, how tyrannical has the IRS been to you. If they did their job properly, and if Congress regulated them properly, they'd be going after wealthy tax cheats and leaving johnny average alone.

And just how bloated is the "welfare state". The US spends far less per capita on social welfare than any industrialized nation.

Please, get some grounding in reality before you make such bold claims.

Nations are artificial constructs created by cultural discrepancies and variations, as well as historical wars, settlements etc, in reality they mean very little. People are ultimately divided more by material reasons (ie class) than by abstract metaphysical 'nations'.

lol wut?

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.

Just as an FYI, income tax was brought to us by Lincoln, not Wilson. Yes, I do support tariffs, if only to stop the excessive outsourcing from this country. I would be ecstatic if there was still a job left for me by the time I entered the workforce.

1. The income tax was nonetheless still supported by many socialists in the USA ("Colonel" House, for instance) as a means of "leveling" incomes. The very fact that it was initially sold as a tax only on the rich is proof of this goal of wealth redistribution.
2. Hamilton wasn't perfect. I disagree with his central bank plan, for instance, and his lifetime executive. However, I think that he was on solid ground with the tariffs. Even Jefferson came around to this, and he was no centralist.
3. It was Wilson who brought the income tax back, as a permanent source of revenue (as opposed to a temporary one, the way that Lincoln arguably favored).
4. A policy's legalization and popularity doesn't make it any less tyrannical, if it tramples civil liberties. Prohibition, anyone?
5. Your logic about going "after the rich" is inherently Marxist. It demonstrates my point as to the mentality allowing this monstrous tax law (and the 16th Amendment had no provision in it for legislation to create a tax-collection agency, by the way) to continue.
6. I would much rather tax foreign goods and services than Americans.
7. Nations are hardly obsolete. They are quite effective social and political institutions. You prefer, perhaps, the older system of feudal estates, medieval warlords, and an all-powerful Vatican? Or the old dynastic empires, like the Romanovs?
8. I also support spending cuts as another means of balancing the budget. I'm a paleo-conservative, in the Dirksen mold. Look it up.
9. I've never heard of any contributions to history achieved and motivated by the universal solidarity of any economic class. It's a transitory and uncertain status, hardly a significant source of common ground.
10. Comparisons to Europe are no basis for an argument. Europe might well be destroying personal initiative and pushing toward a quasi-Marxist, quasi-Huxley dystopia, but that wasn't mean that we have to.

I support a Permanant 2% tariff, but no more. Oh, and the elimination of most of our current Government expenditures. Low tariffs are a far better source of income for the Govt. than the many taxes we have today.

What good has efficiency ever done us? Or anyone for that matter?

Uh. Did you seriously just ask that question?

No, I mean, did you? You want an answer because you do not know?

2. Hamilton wasn't perfect. I disagree with his central bank plan, for instance, and his lifetime executive. However, I think that he was on solid ground with the tariffs. Even Jefferson came around to this, and he was no centralist.

No centralist? What about the Louisiana Purchase, the embargo, the foreign adventure into Tripoli, and most especially his continuation of the national bank, etc.?

6. I would much rather tax foreign goods and services than Americans.


Ah, but you ARE advocating a burden upon Americans. You seem to forget that exports and purchases of foreign capital are paid for through imports; if you restrict the latter you restrict the former. Not to mention that you impose higher costs, less capital accumulation (both holdings abroad and internally due to higher present-orientation due to a smaller stock of goods) and fewer goods through imposing any kind of legal barrier on foreign entrepeneurship.

8. I also support spending cuts as another means of balancing the budget. I'm a paleo-conservative, in the Dirksen mold. Look it up.

Yes, I agree with spending cuts. But you still don't realize that no matter where you put the taxes, they will always penalize economic activity.

4. A policy's legalization and popularity doesn't make it any less tyrannical, if it tramples civil liberties. Prohibition, anyone?

I do like this one, though. Even if one likes being a slave, it doesn't make slavery any more licit.

Nations are artificial constructs created by cultural discrepancies and variations, as well as historical wars, settlements etc, in reality they mean very little. People are ultimately divided more by material reasons (ie class) than by abstract metaphysical ‘nations’.
Thank-you ‘Marxism 101’.

Care to contribute to the thread, rather than just spamming?

As to the OP: I've yet to see a cohesive argument against either the IRS or the welfare state, just, "teh guvement stealin ma loot!"

Uh. Did you seriously just ask that question?

No, I mean, did you? You want an answer because you do not know?If I did not want an answer, I would have never asked the question.

Thank-you ‘Marxism 101’.

Care to contribute to the thread, rather than just spamming?

As to the OP: I've yet to see a cohesive argument against either the IRS or the welfare state, just, "teh guvement stealin ma loot!"

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/stealin-my-bucket-seal.jpg

Pretty much.

If I did not want an answer, I would have never asked the question.

Very well. I thought you were being flippant. Efficiency in any system is simply a measure of how much waste is involved. More efficient systems involve less waste. More efficient engines don't waste as much fuel. Waste tends to be bad, because it interferes with the system's purpose. If something is only 90% efficient, that could mean that 10% of the time, it's not doing anyone any use, and is probably doing some harm (generating waste heat or pollution, or requiring extraneous measures to get rid of waste).

In economics the same principle applies. Efficient economies are more able to offer what goods and services people need when they need it, less efficient economies are less able. Highly wasteful economies involve people standing in breadlines all day and paying for bread loaves with cart-fulls of currency and needing to give oral sex to corrupt authorities in order to feed their family.

Efficiency is good.

1. The income tax was nonetheless still supported by many socialists in the USA ("Colonel" House, for instance) as a means of "leveling" incomes. The very fact that it was initially sold as a tax only on the rich is proof of this goal of wealth redistribution.

So what? Why is wealth redistribution an unworthy goal? It happens every day. Poor people work for rich people every day. At the end of the day, the rich are richer, and the poor are just as poor. Why is the reverse any worse?

2. Hamilton wasn't perfect. I disagree with his central bank plan, for instance, and his lifetime executive. However, I think that he was on solid ground with the tariffs. Even Jefferson came around to this, and he was no centralist.

So you would replace a system that can be used to check the power of the very wealthy with a system that gives them practically absolute power in the home market?

3. It was Wilson who brought the income tax back, as a permanent source of revenue (as opposed to a temporary one, the way that Lincoln arguably favored).

So what? He also used it to pay for a war, just like Lincoln. His support of the income tax was perhaps the only benign thing of his entire presidency. WWI was an unmitigated disaster on a scale as great as the Iraq War, if not greater. And the Red Scare was the harshest domestic crackdown on political dissent that the US has ever seen. Why should he be singled out for just his support of the income tax? Isn't that ethically unsound, espescially since you haven't proven why the income tax is bad.

4. A policy's legalization and popularity doesn't make it any less tyrannical, if it tramples civil liberties. Prohibition, anyone?

How is income tax inherently tyrannical? Prove it to me without destroying the meaning of words in the English language.

5. Your logic about going "after the rich" is inherently Marxist. It demonstrates my point as to the mentality allowing this monstrous tax law (and the 16th Amendment had no provision in it for legislation to create a tax-collection agency, by the way) to continue.

Why is forcing the wealthy to pay to support the system from which they benefit tyrannical? Why is income tax in this regard "monstrous". As for the sixteenth amendment, there was no need to create language authorizing the creation of the IRS. That is covered under the necessary and proper clause of Article I. If Congress is given the power, it is implied by this clause that it also has the means by which to carry out and enforce this power.

6. I would much rather tax foreign goods and services than Americans.

But you would be indirectly taxing them anyway by making home-grown goods and services more expensive due to lack of competition.

7. Nations are hardly obsolete. They are quite effective social and political institutions. You prefer, perhaps, the older system of feudal estates, medieval warlords, and an all-powerful Vatican? Or the old dynastic empires, like the Romanovs?

This is hardly relevant to the discussion.

8. I also support spending cuts as another means of balancing the budget. I'm a paleo-conservative, in the Dirksen mold. Look it up.

Go through and do the math then, and see if tarrifs could support the US budget even with massive budget cuts.

Go through and do the math then, and see if tarrifs could support the US budget even with massive budget cuts.
It depends. How large are the budget cuts we're talking about?(Rubs hands with glee)
But you would be indirectly taxing them anyway by making home-grown goods and services more expensive due to lack of competition.

A small tariff would increase the price of foreign goods, but with the MASSIVE budget cuts, and the elimination of all taxes (Except tariffs) you would be able to afford it. Heck you'd be richer! (If I remember right the government takes about 43% of your income, a tariff wouldn't be a tenth of that)
So you would replace a system that can be used to check the power of the very wealthy with a system that gives them practically absolute power in the home market?


I fail to see how it gives the very rich "Absoulute power" over the FREE market(Unregulated)
Yes, I relize that your replies were not meant for me, but unoccupied was not answering.

http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/stealin-my-bucket-seal.jpg

Pretty much.
1. Lol.

2. It's easy to make fun of the reaction. It's rather more difficult to justify the action in the first place. It's not about people needing to make an argument against government policy X, it's about people needing to make an argument for it. The default status is that X does not exist - if you want it to, it's up to you to justify it.

It depends. How large are the budget cuts we're talking about?(Rubs hands with glee)

*sigh*

A small tariff would increase the price of foreign goods, but with the MASSIVE budget cuts, and the elimination of all taxes (Except tariffs) you would be able to afford it. Heck you'd be richer! (If I remember right the government takes about 43% of your income, a tariff wouldn't be a tenth of that)

And it also decreases the need for home businesses to be competive, thus increasing the prices consumers face.

I fail to see how it gives the very rich "Absoulute power" over the FREE market(Unregulated)
Yes, I relize that your replies were not meant for me, but unoccupied was not answering.

If you have tarrifs, it is not a free market.

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.

i agree

I always get a kick out of the people who say "tyranny of the IRS" despite the point that it was an Amendment not only passed by Congress but also approved by the states, showing strong support across the nation for income tax.

Hitler's National Socialism had strong support. Does that make it less tyrannical?

Free trade is more beneficial to both nations engaging in the practice than protectionism. Thank you, Ricardo.

Hitler’s National Socialism had strong support. Does that make it less tyrannical?
*clears throat* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law)

“It had strong support” doesn’t make something any less tyrannical.
It doesn’t establish tyranny in any way either.

And comparisons with Nazi Germany are best left alone.

*clears throat* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law)

What? It was a perfectly reasonable question to a stupid comment.

"It had strong support" doesn't make something any less tyrannical.

What? It was a perfectly reasonable question to a stupid comment.

"It had strong support" doesn't make something any less tyrannical.

And you have yet to demonstrate the tyranny.

It doesn’t establish tyranny in any way either.

Yes, it does.

And comparisons with Nazi Germany are best left alone.

I was trying to make a point. Just because something has strong support doesn't mean it's not tyrannical.

And you have yet to demonstrate the tyranny.

Not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that judging whether something is tyrannical or not on the basis of how popular it is, is silly.

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:). Marxist? Adam Smith came up with it.

Yes, it does.
No, it doesn’t. (See below)

I was trying to make a point. Just because something has strong support doesn’t mean it’s not tyrannical.
That’s true, but it doesn’t follow logically that therefore anything with strong support is necessarily tyrannical.

That’s true, but it doesn’t follow logically that therefore anything with strong support is necessarily tyrannical.

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of how much support it has/doesn't have.

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of how much support it has/doesn’t have.
And you’ve yet to show how the IRS is a tyranny, except for a flimsy Godwin and piss-poor use of ‘logic’.

And it also decreases the need for home businesses to be competive, thus increasing the prices consumers face.Not to mention how tariffs on one product affect tariffs on others. Look at the way the tariff on sugar affects the candy industry, for instance.

Marxist? Adam Smith came up with it.

Adam Smith's fallacious theories, which are far inferior to his predecessors the Late Spanish Scholastics, Cantillon, Turgot, etc., are the foundation of Marxism (most especially his criticism of the 'spiritual degradation' of the division of labor.)

Adam Smith's fallacious theories, which are far inferior to his predecessors the Late Spanish Scholastics, Cantillon, Turgot, etc., are the foundation of Marxism (most especially his criticism of the 'spiritual degradation' of the division of labor.)

But remember, Adam Smith is the spiritual godhead of the modern free-market right-wing.

What we have to remember is that most of all, Adam Smith was not an economist. Like Karl Marx, he was primarily a moral philosopher. An economistic one, but a moral philosopher nonetheless.

What we have to remember is that most of all, Adam Smith was not an economist. Like Karl Marx, he was primarily a moral philosopher. An economistic one, but a moral philosopher nonetheless.
And as much a historian. But then, as a History student, that's how I normally study Marx's works, I guess.

And as much a historian. But then, as a History student, that's how I normally study Marx's works, I guess.

That is certainly a valid way of looking at Marx's works. Indeed, nearly all of the great political and moral philosophers have also served as historians.

But remember, Adam Smith is the spiritual godhead of the modern free-market right-wing.

He sure as hell isn't my godhead, nor that of any genuine freemarketeer. Maybe for the Republican party types, but they are simply the right-wing of social democracy that will tax, regulate and spend as soon as they promise not to.

What we have to remember is that most of all, Adam Smith was not an economist. Like Karl Marx, he was primarily a moral philosopher. An economistic one, but a moral philosopher nonetheless.

And neither particularly good ones.

Edit: I will say, though, that at least Marx was, to my knowledge, not a plagiarist. Smith, on the other hand...

He sure as hell isn't my godhead, nor that of any genuine freemarketeer. Maybe for the Republican party types, but they are simply the right-wing of social democracy that will tax, regulate and spend as soon as they promise not to.

And not a particularly good one.

Edit: I will say, though, that at least Marx was, to my knowledge, not a plagiarist. Smith, on the other hand...

Truth is only what people perceive. In America, Adam Smith is deified and Karl Marx demonized for doing the exact same things: writing about what people ought to do, not what was politically or economically convenient. Regardless of what we know to be true, we won't be able to convince the majority of people that they worship a false god and unjustly demonize his spiritual descendant.

What is wrong with Adam Smith's moral philosophy anyway?

EDIT: Hmm, I wasn't aware of any accusations of plagiarism against Adam Smith. You'll have to elaborate, since I'm quite in the dark on this subject.

<SNIP> get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, <SNIP>

:confused:

(If I remember right the government takes about 43% of your income, a tariff wouldn't be a tenth of that)

The government takes approximately 10% of my income if I include property taxes, much less if I only include deductions from my pay.

If you have tarrifs, it is not a free market.

Depends upon how narrow your focus is: If the tariffs are on foreign products only, then you could have a free domestic market.






As a note I agree with your summation, just pointing out how it could be reasonably viewed otherwise

Truth is only what people perceive. In America, Adam Smith is deified and Karl Marx demonized for doing the exact same things: writing about what people ought to do, not what was politically or economically convenient. Regardless of what we know to be true, we won't be able to convince the majority of people that they worship a false god and unjustly demonize his spiritual descendant.

Just so you know, I am a free-marketeer and opposed to Marxism; I am simply recognizing the fact that Smith was the antecedent to Marx, neither of whose philosophies I like. My philosophy is more in line with that of the Late Spanish Scholastics.

What is wrong with Adam Smith's moral philosophy anyway?

He was a hardcore Presbyterian moralist who thought that only the state can 'discipline' people into being good folk, and as such has a tendency towards nationalism and puritanism. (He actually advocated the state having a variety of controls, such as restrictions on grain trade, navigation acts, militarism, etc.)

EDIT: Hmm, I wasn't aware of any accusations of plagiarism against Adam Smith. You'll have to elaborate, since I'm quite in the dark on this subject.

Adam Smith was a notorious plagiarist; his example of the pins is an obvious one, as in England pin factories had 25 operations instead of just 18. French factories have only 18 operations, which the Encyclopedie had an article on. Among other evidence, there is the testimony of Adam Smith's friend Adam Ferguson that they both plagiarized the Encyclopedie. (Perversely enough, Smith accused Ferguson of plagiarizing him, of all people.) Smith also plagiarized from the Late Spanish Scholastics, Cantillon, and even his own teacher Francis Hutcheson.

Just so you know, I am a free-marketeer and opposed to Marxism; I am simply recognizing the fact that Smith was the antecedent to Marx, neither of whose philosophies I like. My philosophy is more in line with that of the Late Spanish Scholastics.

I was merely pointing out the paradox. I already knew you were a free-marketer. Simply put, we know that the mainstream is full of BS, but we won't be able to convince them of their false dichotomy.

He was a hardcore Presbyterian moralist who thought that only the state can 'discipline' people into being good folk, and as such has a tendency towards nationalism and puritanism. (He actually advocated the state having a variety of controls, such as restrictions on grain trade, navigation acts, militarism, etc.)

Hmm. Interesting. I already knew that the authentic Adam Smith was pro-regulation in some aspects so long as regulation benefited the commonwealth and not the manufacturers and landowners. But Nationalism in that time period was unavoidable. It is truly hard to find internationalists even now.

I think that the time has come to bring back tariffs and the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton. Tariffs are a far superior source of revenue to the Marxist prescription of the graduated income tax (brought to the USA by, guess who...drumroll here....Thomas Woodrow Wilson:mad:).

Seriously, if you want to balance the budget, get rid of the police state tyranny of the IRS, and scrap the bloated federal welfare state, tariffs are your only real option. We'd be rid of the national debt in no time.
Tariffs are so wrong.

Let's look as something as simple as nails. We don't like the way China 'dumps' nails in the United States. So we tax them. Now, homebuilders have to pay an exorbitant price for nails and the price of houses goes up. People can't afford the houses and the trades start laying off.

All because we put some protective tariffs on nails.

Support the FairTax, instead.

Tariffs are so wrong.

Let's look as something as simple as nails. We don't like the way China 'dumps' nails in the United States. So we tax them. Now, homebuilders have to pay an exorbitant price for nails and the price of houses goes up. People can't afford the houses and the trades start laying off.

All because we put some protective tariffs on nails.

Support the FairTax, instead.

Which is no more 'fair' than tariffs...

Only a prohibitive tariff would make nails and other necessities that expensive. I don't favor a prohibitive tariff, just a protective one. Too high, and it actually decreases revenue.

I also propose a campaign finance reform of my own as a secondary source of revenue: a tax on misleading campaign ads. This wouldn't violate the First Amendment, since politicians could still lie. They would just have to pay up when they did so. Something tells me that the revenue would be considerable each election year.