Actually, Smith was too much of a nationalist! Along with courts, police, defense, patents, and public education, he also said government had a responsibility to “maintain the dignity of the sovereign,” which I’m guessing means the king. Riccardo is the better economist.

Americans most certainly do pay for tarrifs. They pay for them in the form of higher prices on imported goods, and lower quality of domestic goods since domestic producers are not incentivized to produce higher quality or lower cost competitors.

Take this recent disaster by the Bush admin to slap “sanctions” on Chinese paper. The Chi-Coms are subsidizing the purchase of printer paper for Americans. The Chinese taxpayer is helping ME buy a pack of paper! How is this bad for me? I don’t want my government doing it, but if another government is dumb enough, then great! Do we really need domestic paper producers anyway? And if we do, then that just makes it so they have to produce better quality paper / add value in some other way. Let the Chi-Coms make my paper cheaper. It only hurts them in the long run.

You can email me if you don’t feel comfortable giving out info.
Shotdown1027@yahoo.com

As for some elite in Washinton deciding what the tarriff rates are….how is that worse than the Elite in washington determining what the income tax rate is?
The idea is to keep it low in both cases. But this way, the American citizen doesn’t pay that tax.

In 2006, I voted for Libertarians, Democrats, and Greens. Whomever was the least worst in my view.

I am not thrilled with my state’s LP. It has a more conservative approach, focusing on issues that align it with the far right. Many of its candidates do not share my values. And furthermore, it runs a whole lot of “paper candidates” over and over and over again, for whom I feel like my vote would literally be a waste.

So I consider myself to be a true independent. A neo-liberal. In 2008 and beyond, my guiding principle will be to select the candidate that best reflects my values of maximizing individual rights and economic growth. I care not if the candidate has a “chance to win,” but I do care whether or not they deserve to win. Whether or not they could do the job, whether or not they’re working hard to get it. So sadly, I do not anticipate on voting for as many LP candidates as I would if I lived in a state like Georgia, for example.

Actually, i believe you have said those words GE, or if not those exactly, then I am paraphrasing. But for the sake of a nicer thread ill say “whoops, maybe not.”

However, rather than bicker about Adam Smith, i’d like to concentrate on your first two paragraphs.
First, I realize you haven’t place the race card in this thread.
Second, why HAVE you toned down the vulgarity? (not that im complaining)
Third, here is my question—do you only vote LP?

I’m not trying to discourage people from voting third-party. I have voted third party in the vast majority of races for which there were third-party candidates since I began voting in 1996.

Unlike others, I do not believe you should vote for a candidate because he/she will win. That’s idiotic. You vote is your voice. You have to choose how you want your voice to be heard and counted.

I’ve donated small amounts of money to a lot of candidates. I just did the math; 15 in all over the course of the past three years. 10 of the 15 were third-party or independents. Only 2 of the 15 won. Only one or two additional had any realistic chance of winning.

I’ve you understand Adam Smith, then you reject him. He was an opponent of mercantlism, a creed to which you profess your faith.

Also, it is typically low class to quote me saying words I’ve never said.

You, using racism, prejudice, and vulgarity to try and disparage people from voting third party (because in your words “Only democrats and republicans will win”).

Oh,and in case you didn’t realize, i’m quite well read.
You’ve read Adam Smith.
I’ve read Adam Smith and understood it.

Protectionism is the cruelest, most regressive, most anti-growth, and most big-government form of taxation.