Donald Trump went on the offensive in Las Vegas. Well, at least he’s telling it as he sees it, which is unusual in the political world. When a possible future presidential candidate goes out and openly declares his support for fascism — and his ignorance of the principles upon which America was founded — then at least we know exactly what we’re dealing with.
In his rants that are supposedly to express how “pro-America” he is, Trump, in fact, is really anti-America. Along with all the obscenities that show how much class he really has, Trump proclaimed his lack of knowledge of economics and understanding of basic principles, including,
They (Saudi Arabia) go in and raise the price of oil, because we have nobody in Washington that sits back and say, ‘You’re not gonna raise that f—— price. You understand me?
So he wants U.S. government bureaucrats to order the Saudis not to raise prices? Do U.S. officials have that kind of authority over others in other countries? Why doesn’t he look further into the situation as far as why the price or oil and gas is so high now? Has Trump addressed the fact that the U.S. government — with all its wacky, destructive environmental laws and energy regulations — is restricting Americans’ right to explore for and make use of energy resources on their own lands? Could he possibly consider the idea that the people of the states actually have more of a right to control their own lands and resources than the U.S. government has?
If Trump were truly “pro-America,” he would advocate that the people of the states nullify and ignore all federal environmental and energy-related laws and regulations, and drill for oil and gas anyway, and build and use nuclear power plants anyway, regardless of what federal bureaucrats say. Trump could make better use of the f-bomb by telling the U.S. government to go f itself.
And in his fascist stand against American consumers and their right to make choices on a free market, Trump said that he would tell the Chinese, “Listen you motherf——, we’re going to tax you 25%.” Trump has already stated in the past that he “would love to have a trade war with China.”
I suppose he supports the trade war that Obama already started on behalf of America’s Obama-campaign-contributing unions. In September, 2009 Obama’s trade war with China involved the 35% tariff on Chinese tire imports. As the New York Times put it,
The decision is a major victory for the United Steelworkers, the union that represents American tire workers. And Mr. Obama cannot afford to jeopardize his relationship with major unions as he pushes Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system.
It’s all political with these politicians who want to destroy America’s wealth in order to save it. But really, the bottom line is that their policies have more to do with politics — getting elected and reelected — than with principle.
Jacob Hornberger noted how Obama’s trade war with China will affect America: “Among the people who pay the price for this post-election payoff are American consumers. They are now denied the opportunity of purchasing low-priced tires from China.” There are actually some people who see something wrong with allowing the American people the freedom to purchase a product on the market (anywhere in the world) at the lowest available price.
Being able to purchase the best (or even just the most adequate) product available at the lowest price is the American way. Why should our government have the power to restrict our right to do that? Should Americans have to spend more money for products to help pay off unions who support Obama’s election campaigns?
Americans have a right to purchase products made by producers in other countries if those companies make better goods at a lower price. It is this kind of American freedom and free-market competition that gives American producers the incentive to make better products at lower prices, and thus attract more buyers honestly and without the protective restrictions of government coercion.
And regarding the trade wars that Obama started to protect his campaign’s union supporters, following the U.S. government’s China tires tariffs, Jacob Hornberger continues,
China hit the United States with duties reaching 36 percent on certain nylon products.
Obama’s people then retaliated against the Chinese retaliation by imposing anti-dumping duties on Chinese steel pipe, and threatened duties on other Chinese imports.
One day later, the Chinese threatened import duties on the American automobile industry, the pride and joy of Obama’s socialist bailout scheme. China also imposed tariffs ranging from 5 to 35 percent on industrial acid used to produce nylons and medicine.
Trump supports the strong-arm, union-like tactics of Big Government to protect Big Business at the expense of small business, to protect union workers at the expense of non-union workers and American consumers. In other words, the socialist, central planning power of governments to trespass into Americans’ private economic matters (and for political reasons).
Trump supports government restrictions against Americans’ God-given right to trade with other Americans or with foreigners, and Americans’ right to make use of their own labor, wealth and property as they see fit in voluntary exchange with others for mutually beneficial outcomes. Those associations, contracts and transactions are none of any bureaucrat’s or politician’s business.
Thomas Jefferson declared in his 1801 presidential inauguration address, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” My interpretation of that is that governments should not be empowered or permitted to interfere with the people’s right to trade with others, and that the government should not be permitted to collude with foreign governments for any purpose.
Trade restrictions, in my opinion, are the government’s trespassing into private Americans’ private matters, and such restrictions make Americans less well served than they would be otherwise with unrestricted freedom of trade under the rule of law that forbids theft, trespass and physical aggression.
Scott Lazarowitz's Blog 