Protectionism: An Economic Virus

[Fade the Butcher]

Jonah frets over the implosion of the free trade consensus. I made this point in my response to Potyondi the other day. Racialists (who are also overwhelmingly economic nationalists) are gaining ground on all sorts of issues, especially on the economic front.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg9mar09,0,1564024.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

KosherRepublic Commentary (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593200/posts)

Protectionism, and the politicians who champion it, threaten to derail growth.

March 9, 2006

STATE DEPARTMENT cookie-pushers, Davos dons, Wall Street Brahmins, think-tank worrywarts and the Olympians of the European Union are all fretting about the troubling rise of "economic nationalism" in the West. And, although it pains me to say so, I think the pinstripe crowd is right.

To read the financial and European press, economic nationalism is the avian flu of public policy, spreading the bacillus of protectionism from one society to the next. Last week, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso denounced the rise in "nationalistic rhetoric" in Europe in response to the latest outbreak in France, where Prime Minister Dominque de Villepin blocked a Spanish company from taking over a French energy company. De Villepin said he put the kibosh on the plan out of "economic patriotism."

The European debate is much nastier than ours because Europe's problems are so much worse. Europe has an asthmatic economy, a civilizational crisis brewing over Islam and immigration, an aging and shrinking population and an anemic military establishment. And its reason for existence — the EU — is adrift without a constitution.

But even here in the U.S., the same argument has been raging for years. Companies that outsource jobs or move their headquarters abroad for tax purposes have for some time been called unpatriotic by many liberals and quite a few conservatives. Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader have both played the economic patriotism card to the hilt, but even mainstream politicians wax populist on trade. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) demonized "Benedict Arnold corporations" in the 2004 presidential campaign.

This bipartisan anger is, paradoxically, the product of a larger bipartisan consensus on free trade. Hence, those who dissent from free-trade orthodoxy on the left and the right sound remarkably similar. But that consensus is unraveling as formerly unrelated issues — immigration, trade, outsourcing, globalization, national security, homeland security, the war on terrorism — melt together in the fire of populist anger.

The oddly bipartisan flavor of the outrage over the Dubai ports deal is the latest example of the trend. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) wrote a one-sentence letter to President Bush outlining the view of many Republicans: "Not just no, but HELL NO." Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is less pithy but even more extreme: "We have to have American companies running our own ports."

The beauty of the American free-trade consensus over the last few decades is that it split two outlooks that tend to go together: nationalism and socialism. In terms of economic policy, nationalism is indistinguishable from socialism. When you nationalize an industry, you socialize it. And what is the difference between socialized medicine and nationalized healthcare?

Liberals are naturally sympathetic to socialistic arguments, conservatives to nationalistic ones. But to everyone's benefit these two outlooks have been quarantined in different parties. Conservatives have been culturally nationalistic but economically liberal (in the classical sense). Liberals have been economically nationalistic — on healthcare, regulation, taxes, unions — but culturally liberal. Although it's been quite painful for them, this cultural liberalism has kept the Democratic Party in favor of free trade and immigration. Protectionism hurts foreigners and poor Americans, after all.

Indeed, to be fair, the Democratic Party has been heroic in bucking its base — the economically nationalistic labor movement — on free trade. FDR, Truman and Kennedy were all consummate economic nationalists. Free trade was tactically in their interests for a long time because it dovetailed with labor's interest. When the United States stopped being the manufacturer to the world, the Democratic Party struggled — not always successfully — to stay pro-trade on principle, even at the cost of votes. Meanwhile, the GOP has had the opposite challenge: to stay pro-free trade even as its ranks swell with working-class voters enamored with their paychecks, not Adam Smith.

Now, a win-at-all-costs Democratic Party has realized that this is the perfect moment for it to re-brand all of its economic ideas in the language of patriotism. Many Republicans are determined to fight the Democrats for this turf. So they too are bending their economic policies to fit their cultural conservatism.

And if we let them follow this path, we'll have the same problems as Europe in no time.

[Fade the Butcher]

An apt Freaker comment.

"Yep, if Ralph Nadar's chocolate ever gets into Paul Craig Roberts' peanut butter you'll have the perfect blend of nationalism and socialism. I'll call it what Jonah was too polite to describe it as. National Socialism."

[Thinker]

Ah yes, economic politics. But, alas, here is an illustration why all this talk about protectionism and accompaniying tariffs, while certainly nice-sounding, is an effort in futility.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say that General Electric can make TV's either in China, or the US, for sale in the US. Let's see what happens both with, and without, tariffs, using some hypothetical numbers . . .

GE TV Made in China
Cost to produce:_________$200
Overseas shipping cost:___$20
Market price in USA:______$500
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $280

Now take the exact same TV and try to make it in the US . . .

GE TV Made in USA
Cost to produce:_________$500
Overseas shipping cost:___$0
Market price in USA:______$600
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $100

Let's say that the US government saw this and decided that China had an "unfair" advantage in making TV sets, so it imposed a $100 per TV tariff on these TV sets when they're imported into the US, just to make the price competitive with US-made TV's . . .

GE TV Made in China
Cost to produce:_________$200
Overseas shipping cost:___$20
TARIFF:_______________$100 – GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT G.E.!!
Market price in USA:______$600
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $280

Even *with* a tariff, GE's profit margin is the same as *without* a tariff!!!! Therefore, there is absolutely NO incentive for GE to produce TV's in the US. All a tariff does is raise the price of something to the consumer. Since the money from the tariff goes to the government and not GE, it does not effect the profitability of something. GE's costs and profits are the same, regardless. And since it is more profitable to make TV's in China regardless of the tariffs, GE (or any other electronics company) will continue to do so.

All tariffs will do is create unneeded inflation, and perhaps create some extra revenue for the government. Nothing more will be gained for the nation or its economy. In fact, given that they do create extra inflation, you might say they're even a net loss to an economy.

[Thinker]

Note: I realize that post above was somewhat off-topic from the article, but I thought it would be a good place to post that illustration anyway. :)

[Dan Dare]

This is a typically Mickey-mouse analogy from Thinker.

The real numbers are more like as follows:

GE TV Made in China
Cost to produce:_________$50
Overseas shipping cost:___$5
Market price in USA:______$500
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $445

Now take the exact same TV and try to make it in the US . . .

GE TV Made in USA
Cost to produce:_________$60
Overseas shipping cost:___$0
Market price in USA:______$500
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $440

The manufacturing cost for almost any electronics product is usually less that 10% of the US list price. So the benefit of sourcing in China is limited to the variable cost of manufacturing, less shipping, and since most of these roducts lend themselves to process-flow techniques the difference is going to be rather marginal. But that $5 means the world to the beaners.

[Thinker]

This is a typically Mickey-mouse analogy from Thinker.

The real numbers are more like as follows:

GE TV Made in China
Cost to produce:_________$50
Overseas shipping cost:___$5
Market price in USA:______$500
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $445

Now take the exact same TV and try to make it in the US . . .

GE TV Made in USA
Cost to produce:_________$60
Overseas shipping cost:___$0
Market price in USA:______$500
-------------------------------------------------
GE's profit: $440

The manufacturing cost for almost any electronics product is usually less that 10% of the US list price. So the benefit of sourcing in China is limited to the variable cost of manufacturing, less shipping, and since most of these roducts lend themselves to process-flow techniques the difference is going to be rather marginal. But that $5 means the world to the beaners.
Yes, that extra $5 really adds up when you're selling millions of TV's.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah. The use of detached hypothetical scenarios and deduction from castle-in-the-air a priori theorems (say, at what velocity do angels travel through void space?) as opposed to historical analysis is a central issue that I will address in the theoretical section of my massive, but as yet, publically unreleased response to the other thread. I would have already responded to that post by now had it not been for: 1.) my ongoing inquiry into the eugenics movement (see numerous recent threads about the subject), 2.) my limited time, and 3.) the scope of my planned rebuttal which has necessitated considerable research.

In any case, the point of Mr. Goldberg's article seems totally lost on you: free traders continue to win many battles, but the margin of their victories has eroded enormously in recent years. The razor thin passage of CAFTA in the House of Representatives as opposed to NAFTA in the 1990s is a case in point. The recent scuttling of the DPA deal is another. The massive protests that frequently meet WTO meetings another still. The emergence of explicitly protectionist rhetoric in the 2004 presidential election cycle is a harbinger of things to come. As Bush himself put it the other day, "I am worried about isolation and protectionism." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1710240). He has entirely valid reasons to be concerned. The American public has soured on his economic policies and foreign policy.

[Thinker]

Ah. The use of detached hypothetical scenarios and deduction from castle-in-the-air a priori theorems (say, at what velocity do angels travel through void space?) as opposed to historical analysis is a central issue that I will address in the theoretical section of my massive, but as yet, publically unreleased response to the other thread. I would have already responded to that post by now had it not been for: 1.) my ongoing inquiry into the eugenics movement (see numerous recent threads about the subject), 2.) my limited time, and 3.) the scope of my planned rebuttal which has necessitated considerable research.

In any case, the point of Mr. Goldberg's article seems totally lost on you: free traders continue to win many battles, but the margin of their victories has eroded enormously in recent years. The razor thin passage of CAFTA in the House of Representatives as opposed to NAFTA in the 1990s is a case in point. The recent scuttling of the DPA deal is another. The massive protests that frequently meet WTO meetings another still. The emergence of explicitly protectionist rhetoric in the 2004 presidential election cycle is a harbinger of things to come. As Bush himself put it the other day, "I am worried about isolation and protectionism." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1710240). He has entirely valid reasons to be concerned. The American public has soured on his economic policies and foreign policy.
As I said above, my analysis was somewhat off-topic.

I am well-aware that there is considerable sentiment against free trade, and that free trade efforts often fail to garner political support. It might even be true that, increasingly, they are gaining less and less political support.

But, of course, politics is not a rational endeavor, and that politics might be increasingly anti-free trade is not neccessarily an indicator that free trade is objectively bad.

Historical analysis is filled with plenty of examples of nations prospering with free trade. I suppose we can save that for the other thread.

[Fade the Butcher]

The Weekly Standard obviously has its finger in the air.

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/935cfvos.asp)

Protectionism Resurgent

The governments of the world's leading economies are creating obstacles to the free movement of goods, services, and capital.

This might be one of those turning points in economic and political affairs. In economics, we might be seeing the end of the era of free trade. In politics, we might be witnessing the reemergence of nationalism and its close cousin, protectionism. The result will surely be a less efficient use of the world's resources.

International trade consists of the movement of goods, services, people, and capital. Since the end of World War II, the trend has been to make the movement of those four resources progressively easier. Consumers have been showered with a greater variety of goods at lower prices; workers in developing countries have gotten jobs producing those goods; other workers have moved across borders in search of jobs and higher living standards; and, because capital has been allowed to flow to countries with attractive tax regimes, those countries have received a flood of job-creating, inward investment and, in the process, forced other countries to restrain their inclinations to raise taxes.

True, there are some losers--most notably workers in developed countries who are displaced by lower paid employees in the developing world--but by and large the benefits of free trade do exceed the costs.

But that doesn't seem to matter to the world's politicians, who hear from the usually well-organized losers, but not from the millions of dispersed consumers who are the (often unknowing) beneficiaries of a free-trading regime. Most often, they respond to those complaints by banning imports of whatever product has at that moment aroused a portion of the indigenous workforce to threaten retaliation at the polls. . . .

[Leif]

All tariffs will do is create unneeded inflation, and perhaps create some extra revenue for the government. Nothing more will be gained for the nation or its economy. In fact, given that they do create extra inflation, you might say they're even a net loss to an economy.

Firstly, the profits of an individual company do not matter, as they are merely theft and graft. (Proven by the LTV (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=56442#post56442).)

Secondly, what one gains by "protectionism" is an economically autonomous country. Without economic autonomy, we lose political autonomy. Without political autonomy, we would be speaking Chinese within a hundred years.

[Fade the Butcher]

I am well-aware that there is considerable sentiment against free trade, and that free trade efforts often fail to garner political support. It might even be true that, increasingly, they are gaining less and less political support.

The WTO received a warm welcome in Seattle back in 1999. Evo Morales in Bolivia recently joined the ranks of Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina (with Fidel Castro smiling in the background). The Mexican elections are coming up this summer too. Manuel López Obrador is leading in the polls. Who is Manuel Obrador?

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0416-24.htm)

"In Mexico, the undeniable failure of free trade/privatization economic model – developed by the PRI and then championed by the Fox administration -- fuels the candidacy of Lopez Obrador who has consistently called for the re-negotiation of NAFTA and has long opposed the wholesale privatization of Mexico’s strategic resources and industries. So, rather than risk the election of someone who challenges the self-serving structures of wealth and power in Mexico, the conservatives have allied to keep Lopez Obrador from even running."

U.S. driven globalization is being rolled back in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. Globalism is increasingly under attack in America as well.

But, of course, politics is not a rational endeavor

This is false.

. . . and that politics might be increasingly anti-free trade is not neccessarily an indicator that free trade is objectively bad.

I will address this matter in my response.

Historical analysis is filled with plenty of examples of nations propering with free trade. I suppose we can save that for the other thread.

I can't wait.

[Thinker]

Firstly, the profits of an individual company do not matter, as they are merely theft and graft. (Proven by the LTV (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=56442#post56442).)

Hmmm . . . perhaps its time to bring out those Lenin statues, gazing bravely into the future . . .


Secondly, what one gains by "protectionism" is an economically autonomous country. Without economic autonomy, we lose political autonomy. Without political autonomy, we would be speaking Chinese within a hundred years.
Or, perhaps the Chinese will be speaking English within a hundred years.

[Thinker]

The WTO received a warm welcome in Seattle back in 1999. Evo Morales in Bolivia recently joined the ranks of Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Néstor Kirchner in Argentina (with Fidel Castro smiling in the background). The Mexican elections are coming up this summer too. Manuel López Obrador is leading in the polls. Who is Manuel Obrador?

Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0416-24.htm)

"In Mexico, the undeniable failure of free trade/privatization economic model – developed by the PRI and then championed by the Fox administration -- fuels the candidacy of Lopez Obrador who has consistently called for the re-negotiation of NAFTA and has long opposed the wholesale privatization of Mexico’s strategic resources and industries. So, rather than risk the election of someone who challenges the self-serving structures of wealth and power in Mexico, the conservatives have allied to keep Lopez Obrador from even running."

U.S. driven globalization is being rolled back in the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. Globalism is increasingly under attack in America as well.

Once again, I admit that free trade does not always win the popularity contests.


This is false.

Very well, you win. If politics is a rational endeavor, then the failure of racial nationalism to gain adherents in the US means that the rational body politic has objectively viewed the evidence for it and rejected it on its own factual dismerits.


I will address this matter in my response.

I can't wait.
I await your respoonse.

[Fade the Butcher]

Once again, I admit that free trade does not always win the popularity contests.

I forgot to mention that elections are coming up in Peru and Columbia too. Ollanta Humala in Peru is expected to make a vigorous showing in that election.

Very well, you win. If politics is a rational endeavor, then the failure of racial nationalism to gain adherents in the US means that the rational body politic has objectively viewed the evidence for it and rejected it on its own factual dismerits.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The majority of Americans don't believe in evolution either (in the 21st century). It would be illogical to infer that biology is irrational because of that when the defect lies in the individual lay ignorance, not biology. Similarly, black Africans who believe that raping virgins is a cure for AIDS in no way demonstrates that medicine in irrational.

I await your respoonse.

Itz coming. :)

[Thinker]

I forgot to mention that elections are coming up in Peru and Columbia too. Ollanta Humala in Peru is expected to make a vigorous showing in that election.

Then if these folks win these elections, according to your anti-free trade reasoning we can expect Peru and Columbia to become rich nations, correct?


Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The majority of Americans don't believe in evolution either (in the 21st century). It would be illogical to infer that biology is irrational because of that when the defect lies in the individual lay ignorance, not biology. Similarly, black Africans who believe that raping virgins is a cure for AIDS in no way demonstrates that medicine in irrational.

I didn't say free trade was irrational, I said politics is irrational.

The merits of free trade are rational. The process to determine whether or not free trade should be accepted and implemented is irrational.

Likewise, the merits of evolution are rational. The process to determine whether or not evolution should be believed and taught in schools is irrational.

[Fade the Butcher]

Then if these folks win these elections, according to your anti-free trade reasoning we can expect Peru and Columbia to become rich nations, correct?

No. There are all sorts of factors that are involved.

I didn't say free trade was irrational, I said politics is irrational.

I'm well aware of that. You tried to justify this conclusion with a ridiculous analogy which is fallacious for the reason I gave in my previous response.

The merits of free trade are rational.

This subject shall be discussed in comprehensive detail in my upcoming rebuttal.

The process to determine whether or not free trade should be accepted and implemented is irrational.

This is false. Politics is not irrational. The practice of politics has a definite knowable objective end: to maximize the common good through efficient public administration. The irrationality lies in the absurd system we have in place today where every unqualified imbecile is allowed to pretend to be a statesman and traitors who represent monied special interests are allowed to dominate our government. The fault lies in the ignorance of the individual, not with politics.

Likewise, the merits of evolution are rational.

The merits of defense and justice are equally rational.

The process to determine whether or not evolution should be believed and taught in schools is irrational.

The current system we have in place today is grossly irrational. I agree. In fact, I have made this point many times in the past. It's good to see you learning something. It is an error, however, to assume that politics is irrational because irrational people are allowed to engage in politics. Similarly, it is an error to assume that economics is irrational because imbeciles are allowed make economic decisions. Finally, it is an error to assume that medicine is irrational because people engage in human sacrifice. If I were to perform brain surgery on someone and kill them in the process, Thinker would have us believe that the fault lies with brain surgery, not with my ignorance. If I were to assume control of a 747 and crash it in a field over Iowa, Thinker would infer that the problem lies with aviation.

[Thinker]

No. There are all sorts of factors that are involved.

Ah yes, complications . . .


I'm well aware of that. You tried to justify this conclusion with a ridiculous analogy which is fallacious for the reason I gave in my previous response.

I was using your own argument against you, in case you didn't notice.

- You said free trade is getting less and less political support.
- I said that says nothing about the merits of free trade itself, since politics does not always arrive at the best or optimal solution (that is, it is irrational).
- You said, yes, politics is a rational endeavor.
- I replied - using your argument against you - that if politics is rational, then you must admit that other political decisions have been rational. One of these is a rejection of racial nationalism in the US.
- You then objected to my use of your own argument against your own position, making an analogy with belief in evolution, stating that I was inferring that free trade was irrational (your analogy stated that the analogy was that biology was irrational).
- I replied by pointing out that I did not say free trade/biology was irrational, I was saying that lack of belief in either is irrational.


This is false. Politics is not irrational. The practice of politics has a definite knowable objective end: to maximize the common good through efficient public administration.
Even if the practice or goal of politics is intended to maximize "the common good," defining what is "the common good" is subjective.

Since the goal of politics is something subjective, with no real "truth" to its end - just "opinions" - that means that it is "irrational." It is "irrational" because its end goal is something entirely "subjective."


The merits of defense and justice are equally rational.

As you would say, this is non-responsive.


The irrationality lies in the absurd system we have in place today where every unqualified imbecile is allowed to pretend to be a statesman and traitors who represent monied special interests are allowed to dominate our government. The fault lies in the ignorance of the individual, not with politics.

The current system we have in place today is grossly irrational. I agree. In fact, I have made this point many times in the past. It's good to see you learning something. It is an error, however, to assume that politics is irrational because irrational people are allowed to engage in politics. Similarly, it is an error to assume that economics is irrational because imbeciles are allowed make economic decisions. Finally, it is an error to assume that medicine is irrational because people engage in human sacrifice. If I were to perform brain surgery on someone and kill them in the process, Thinker would have us believe that the fault lies with brain surgery, not with my ignorance. If I were to assume control of a 747 and crash it in a field over Iowa, Thinker would infer that the problem lies with aviation.
Essentially, you are saying you disagree with the outcomes the collective of individuals have voted for (via their elected polticians).

But this is just what I was saying above: Just because you, personally, believe that such-and-such a policy is traitorous, does not mean it is objectively true. You have not cornered the market for Political Truth. You believe certain policies will result in a betterment of "the common good," while other people will believe that opposing policies will do the same.

But neither you nor you opponents are "correct," it is just a matter of opinion on what "the common good" is.

Since this goal is a matter of opinion - that is, it is subjective - this is why it is "irrational."

I will agree that the process itself can be rational, but the goal of this process - determining "the common good" - is not rational, it is subjective.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah yes, complications . . .

Yes. There is no magic formula for economic prosperity.

I was using your own argument against you, in case you didn't notice.

I didn't notice that. Please enlighten me.

- You said free trade is getting less and less political support.

Yes. This is true. That was the entire point of Goldberg's article.

- I said that says nothing about the merits of free trade itself, since politics does not always arrive at the best or optimal solution (that is, it is irrational).

1.) You acknowledged that the political consensus in favor of free trade is breaking down (thus, you ceded the substantial point that was the issue in this debate).

2.) You responded by attempting to change the subject to the merits of free trade (red herring #1), which is not the subject being discussed, as you freely acknowledged. I pointed this out to you several times.

3.) You introduced the straw issue of politics being irrational (red herring #2), which is curious, because in doing so you would have to logically conclude that lobbying in favor of free trade is irrational (refuting yourself in the process).

4.) I denied that politics is irrational and pointed out your error.

- You said, yes, politics is a rational endeavor.

Yes, I recall saying that.

- I replied - using your argument against you - that if politics is rational, then you must admit that other political decisions have been rational. One of these is a rejection of racial nationalism in the US.

Yes. I recall pointing out your non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise, as one cannot infer that politics is irrational because irrational individuals engage in politics. Furthermore, I argued that politics is rational, not that all people who practice politics are rational. In other words, you are attacking a straw man.

- You then objected to my use of your own argument against your own position

See above.

making an analogy with belief in evolution, stating that I was inferring that free trade was irrational (your analogy stated that the analogy was that biology was irrational).

Yes. I argued that it is illogical to assume that biology is irrational because irrational people deny evolution. Similarly, it is illogical to assume that politics is irrational because irrational people engage in politics. The whole point of this was to highlight your non sequitur.

- I replied by pointing out that I did not say free trade/biology was irrational, I was saying that lack of belief in either is irrational.

This is another straw man. My analogy to evolution/biology was a refutation of your assertion that "if politics is irrational, then you must admit that other political decisions have been rational."

Even if the practice or goal of politics is intended to maximize "the common good," defining what is "the common good" is subjective.

This is false.

Restated: Even if the practice or goal of (economics) is intended to maximize ("the production and distribution of wealth,") defining what is ("wealth") is subjective.

Restated: Even if the practice or goal of (medicine) is "(health)", defining what is [b]("health") is subjective.

Interesting. You assert that the common good is subjective because there is no essentialist definition of the common good, but this pitfall is easily avoided by simply dispensing with essentialism.

Since the goal of politics is something subjective, with no real "truth" to its end - just "opinions" - that means that it is "irrational." It is "irrational" because its end goal is something entirely "subjective."

1.) It has not been established that politics is subjective.
2.) It does not follow that politics is irrational.
3.) The defect does not lie with politics. It lies in your misunderstanding of politics.

Similarly, I could argue the following.

Restated: Since the goal of (economics) is something subjective, wiht no real "truth" to its end - just "opinions" - that means that (free trade) is "irrational." It is "irrational" because the end goal of (economics) is something entirely "subjective."

As you would say, this is non-responsive.

This is false. Both defense and justice are knowable objective goods.

Essentially, you are saying you disagree with the outcomes the collective of individuals have voted for (via their elected polticians).

No, I'm saying that our current political system is grossly flawed. If our health care system was set up in such a manner, then medicine would be in similar disarray.

But this is just what I was saying above: Just because you, personally, believe that such-and-such a policy is traitorous, does not mean it is objectively true.

No. It's objectively true that democratic politicians who put the interests of monied special interests before the common good of the nation are ignorant traitors, as the object of politics is efficient public administration in the name of the common good.

You have not cornered the market for Political Truth.

There is no market of political truth. There is only one truth in the midst of falsehood and ignorance.

You believe certain policies will result in a betterment of "the common good," while other people will believe that opposing policies will do the same.

It doesn't matter what Frank believes or Sally believes. The truth exists independently of what Frank or Sally believes and we can possess rational objective knowledge of it.

But neither you nor you opponents are "correct," it is just a matter of opinion on what "the common good" is.

I love subjectivism. It's self-refuting.

Restated: Thinker is incorrect. When Thinker says that "but neither you nor your opponent are correct, it is just a matter of opinion on what the common good is" he is simply giving his own invalid subjective opinion.

Since this goal is a matter of opinion - that is, it is subjective - this is why it is "irrational."

1.) The end of politics is not a matter of opinion.
2.) It is not subjective. We can objectively deduce correct policies once we know this end.
3.) Politics is not irrational.

I will agree that the process itself can be rational, but the goal of this process - determining "the common good" - is not rational, it is subjective.

This is false.

[Thinker]

Fade, just go finish your stuff on the other thread. No doubt much of this stuff will come up again there anyway.

The only other thing I can add to your nonsense above is, you've clearly turned politics into a religion. Just as God exists objectively in the mind of the religious, political truth exists objectively in the mind of Fade.

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, just go finish your stuff on the other thread. No doubt much of this stuff will come up again there anyway.

The issue of subjectivism was not brought up in the other thread. I was unaware that you were basing your arguments on subjectivism. If that is the case, then all I have to do is dismiss them as arbitrary.

The only other thing I can add to your nonsense above is, you've clearly turned politics into a religion.

I have not posited the existence of any supernatural deity. I simply assume the existence of an objective reality and the possibility of objective knowledge of that reality.

Just as God exists objectively in the mind of the religious, political truth exists objectively in the mind of Fade.

Interesting. Is economics objective or subjective, Thinker?

[Kodos]

I have no problem with a protective tariff if the income tax is abolished as a consequence.

[Felix the Cat]

Who remembers the Chicken War (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,875410,00.html)? :)