Without tariffs, the US could see further reduction in domestic industries
Specific industries yes. Total production? Unlikely. Our tariffs and barriers in most areas (with some exceptions like the politically favored sugar growers) are already fairly low, usually not high enough to be the sole reason an industry survives in the US. And if the sole reason the specific industry survives in the US is because of tariffs, than the resources used for that industry would better be spent elsewhere. This freeing up of resources, and lowering of costs would make other industries more competitive with companies in other countries.
as millions of peasants are forced to abandon their tiny fields.
The same thing happened in the US, and all the labor and other resources freed up, fed our industrial boom, and to a lesser extent our later boom in services. Mexico has avoided making as many adjustments like this, which is a major reason its less productive and poorer than the US.
I understand that you want public education but not public mandatory retirement programs. That, however, does not sit well in the libertarian philosophy.
That sits very well with a mild libertarian philosophy. Not as well with the most extreme versions, but as I pointed out, people don't have to be extremists.
In any case what I really want is not public/socialized education, but public funding of education, in a competitive environment. In an ideal world I'd even do away with the public funding part, but I think that we would have underinvestment in this particular area without public funding, at least underinvestment in the education of the poor. The rich could obviously pay for education, and even the middle class should be able to when relieved of the tax burden that they are already paying for public education, but the poor, not so much. Educating a poor student can make the difference between that person, later on as an adult, being a productive contributor to society, or being a cost to society (through welfare, or if you cancel that through crime). A more hard core libertarian would say that the educational funds and opportunity would come through voluntary charitable contributions. That's possible, but I'm not sufficiently confident at this time. That might keep me from being a hard core libertarian, but it doesn't keep me from being a libertarian.
You said public services were ok but transfer payments were not.
I'm fairly sure I said nothing of the sort. When you complained about me not supporting one type of transfer payment, and supporting another, I pointed out how one was a transfer payment, and the other was a service. That means they are different, but multiple times, I've said one isn't automatically better than the other.
public education is not any more essential than a mandatory retirement program for seniors. That is just your personal opinion but it still does not explain why one is more acceptable as a government function than the other.
Education is an investment in the future potential of the young, and a way to keep them from being a drain on society in the future. Its a positive sum game. Transfer payments are a zero sum game. I much prefer a positive sum game. Having the input for the positive sum game come from the government, isn't my first or favorite choice, but in this case the positive sum is extremely large, and sufficient alternative funding is rather questionable. My opinion here is similar to my opinion about roads. Ideally such infrastructure should be privately provided, but other than limited access highways, which can be toll roads, there is no efficient way to raise the money privately. So we have to have government payment for the infrastructure. But government payment for, doesn't require direct government provision of. Roads can be built by contractors, rather than the government itself. |
