13 responses to “Ron Paul and the Tea Party”

  1. Liberty Call

    on tariffs and their dangers:

    The South seceded from the Union because the North had imposed punitive tariffs upon it. In 1828 the North began imposing agricultural tariffs on the Southern states to subsidize its industrial policies. Thirty year’ later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    1. Fred the Protectionist

      There was no “agricultural tariff” that targeted the South.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  2. Fred the Protectionist

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty#cite_note-9

    “After the end of the American Revolutionary War, Isaac Sears along with Marinus Willet and John Lamb, in New York City, revived the Sons of Liberty. In March 1784, they rallied an enormous crowd that called for the expulsion of any remaining Loyalists from the state starting May 1. The Sons of Liberty were able to gain enough seats in the New York assembly elections of December 1784 to have passed a set of punitive laws against Loyalists. In violation of the Treaty of Paris (1783) they called for the confiscation of the property of Loyalists.”

    That doesn’t sound very Libertarian’ish.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    1. longshotlouie

      In desperation, Fled has gone back to the Victorian Era to find something that might stick to the wall.

      Go wash your hands, son.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        Why do you hate America?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  3. Fred the Protectionist

    The Boston Tea Party was an act of protectionism by the Colonists against the British East India Company that was dumping tea on American shores.

    If there were Libertarians alive at the time, or “Market Liberals” as we call them today, they would have sided with the British….The same way Benjamin Franklin sided with the British. Franklin was one was one of the first to propose in Parliament a cut in tea taxes as a way to: A) Cut taxes on the colonists and B) Save the British East India Company from financial troubles. But that backfired, I guess the ingrate colonists didn’t like the cheap tea.

    Pro-Tec-Tion-Ism. The rebels at the Boston Tea Party were mostly employs of the smuggling companies in competition with the British East India Company, they didn’t want to lose their jobs to dumped British Tea.

    You guys fail at everything: politics, history, governing, propaganda, etc.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

    1. SS

      Now libertarians are for monopolies?
      Freddie is grasping for straw mirages.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      1. Fred the Protectionist

        Don’t take my word for it, listen to your Gods Ludwig von Mises:

        http://mises.org/daily/2435

        I know more about Libertarianism then the Libertarians.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

        1. longshotlouie

          1) N. Joseph Potts is not Ludwig von Mises

          2) Smugglers and consumers are not the same thing

          3) Monopolies are born of government manipulation of trade.

          You know nothing of libertariarians except that of the talking points your masters supplied.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          1. Fred the Protectionist

            1) Uh oh, you oppose something at mises.org

            2) Smugglers and consumers are the same thing, just like producers and consumers are the same thing. Everyone has to eat, and everyone has to work. You know you can consume and work simultaneously.

            3) No they’re not.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          2. longshotlouie

            I never stated an opposition.
            The rest of your reply speaks for itself, comically.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          3. Fred the Protectionist

            You must accept everything at mises.org at face value, cause you’re a Libertarian.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    2. gander

      oh fred, this is your silliest mistake yet

      what you failed to realize is that at the time britain and the colonies were one country. and this country followed protectionism perfectly. they tried to keep all trade and production inside the nation and all it did was get people angry, so angry that they destroyed domestic products and smuggled in foreign ones. the revolution happened because of oppressive protectionism by the british on its own people who lived in america.

      every time in history when oppressive governments put up barriers to trade people defy them and start smuggling.

      this will happen to the US if it goes to the dark side of protectionism. learn the lessons of history.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply