RE: "free trade was a disaster for britain and is proving a disaster for the united states"
That's just utter B.S. Craig. History plainly tells us otherwise.
Yes Craig, you have jumped to misrepresent history in order to attack my opinion. Re: "nah, i think we just misunderstood each other. when i suggested that britain couldn't feed itself after the repeal of the corn laws i wasn't saying they starved.." But CRAIG, you DID plainly and simply say Britians nearly "STARVED(your word, not mine)", in your direct disagrement with my suggestion that Britians ate better after repeal of the Corn Laws. You are either a tad confused, or purposefully mucking up the works. Yes, I've long known that what you meant("...i was saying that they had to rely on others to feed them--food imports. britain had produced 90% of their own food before the repeal of the corn laws, yet by world war one britain could only feed a quarter of the population themselves"), is no counter to my point at all. First off, despite your words above, it remains correct to say that near WWI, Britian successfully was STILL feeding its citizens well(i.e. via trade by choice). Britians simply always ate well after repeal of the corn laws, and such wasn't the case before repeal(hence the clamor to try repeal). History shows that my point was fully correct, AS IS YOURS. Yet you wrote here as if your point made me wrong- not so. Many Britians were fed up with the hardships associated with affording food. They believed the Corn Laws had saddled them with the suffering, so they repealed them and it worked; Britians quickly commenced to eating well for decades after. Such a positive result invariably occurs whenever more freedom is introduced, and history cleary and repeatedly shows us so, if one really looks. Nothing about this is in conflict with your concerns about blockades, etc...it is just the observable economic truth which unfolded hand in hand with the vulnerability you are so concerned with(IMO, deeply stuck in and blinded by).
Re: "i think you are mistaken. the conservatives voted more than 2 to 1 against repeal of the corn laws. they were in favor of tariffs."
Yes, in fact that is, of course, what I intended to say, i.e. you did indeed speak of the conservative party which voted 2-1 against repeal of the Corn Laws(not "against tariffs", as I'd mistakenly edited myself). So as I was saying, the leader of that very conservative party was himself a free trader, is considered by many to be the father of the modern conservative party, and personally sought each conservative vote he got in favor of repeal of the Corn Laws. Without his efforts it's likely Corn Laws wouldn't have been repealed at all. Free Trade had been anathema to his party prior to his influence, as his was also the party that had long supported Kings & land owners against the common man(a status quo thing, ya know?). The "liberal" party of those times struggled for individual rights.
The "liberals" of the time were also American Revolutionaries. Essentially, the moment the American Constitution became law, the former "liberals" became the conservative defenders of the government and the law(the new status quo). The roles of the parties, in the main, were reversed(though it's a mix). Say what you will Craig, but I'm quite confident most observers know well that free traders have long come mainly from the ranks of modern conservatives. Modern conservatives were once largely known as liberals(now, as classic liberals), and this is wholly consistent with your statement that "free trade is a classically liberal stance." I agree. Again, since "Classic Liberals" essentially won the day with the success of the American Revolution, they then by definition became modern conservatives guarding individual rights, and there is little if any question, I re-affirm, that Free Traders today mainly associate with and come out of the ranks of todays conservatives, just as the "classic liberals" back when were often admiring Adam Smith, who too, is certainly often considered as a hero of modern conservatism, never a hero of modern liberalism.
Your Manchester school, incidently, has a lot in common with modern conservatives! It ""stress(es) on the "harmonious" effects of free enterprise capitalism,"" which is a thing quite common for conservatives to do, thank-you.
But I see you have muddied the waters; you argue like a Democrat and there may be no hope for you. You probably see no reason to think free enterprise Capitalism has notable and obvious "harmonious" effects. If so, hopeless I'd declare you, indeed.
Dan B |
