PROFIT VERSUS THE GENERAL WELFARE

If any post exposes the motive driving Libertarianism it is this posted on Infowars: it is all about supporting the entrepreneur making profits against the workers rather than the general welfare of the entrepreneurs fellow countrymen, using the example of true free trade allowing the entrepreneur to buy the best widget abroad rather than the second best widget produced locally, the difference being that the second best widget employs the entrepreneurs' fellow countrymen at recognised wages rather than the best widget from abroad produced by potential enemies at perhaps not the best wages. The article is against protectionism and regulation, which re-built the USA after the British-engineered civil war.

For an illustration of the real effects of protectionist trade policy, we could look to the plight of any small business person who seeks to lesson his costs in the pursuit of making a living. Take an entrepreneur, for example, who finds there is a need in his city for more lawn and garden maintenance services. He or she then seeks to find the lowest-priced and most-reliable lawn mowing machines he can. He knows that the lower he can keep his costs, the lower his own prices will be. Or, if competition is light, he will be able to make more profit and hire more employees.

Ready to stand in the way of all of this are the workers at a domestic lawn mower factory who are quite happy producing lawn mowers that are both more expensive and less reliable than the mowers produced in a neighboring country.

The workers succeed in pressuring the government to slap a tariff on foreign lawn mowing machines which raises costs for the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur then sees his own profits drop which leads to layoffs and even to unemployment to the small business owner himself.

Now, supporters of protectionism would no doubt come back with their own tale of woe about how, if the lawn business has been able to buy cheap mowers, the workers at the domestic lawn mowing factory would be laid off and destitute.

But, implied in the protectionist position is that it is good for the government to make a purely arbitrary decision to support one industry over another. For the protectionist, the freely-made decision of homeowners and gardeners is not to be tolerated and must be quashed by government. Moreover, to make sure that none of those sneaky gardeners gains access to any of these “cheap” foreign-made machines, a small army of customs workers must be hired to ensure compliance and that anyone who dares furnish any business owner with the “wrong” kind of machine will be punished, fined, and possibly imprisoned under federal law.

For the protectionist, this is all a perfectly good and legitimate function of government. The act of buying an economical machine becomes a crime, and the workers at the factory are able to go on producing their second-rate product.

[source : We Need Actual Free Trade, Not the TPP, Mises Institute, https://mises.org/library/we-need-actual-free-trade-not-tpp, 30th May 2015]

This sounds a but like anti-union, anti-regulation, pro-profit talk.

The best argument against Libertarianism is How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. Names include Rockefeller, Koch, Warburg. Another name in the Libertarian ring is Griffin, author of Creature from Jekyll Island, which worshipped Andrew Jackson as anti-bankster.

You do know who Jackson was, don't you?
1. slaveholder;
2. seriously connected to treasonous rings through Burr and van Buren;
3. sacked 2 secretaries to the treasury before his 3rd choice withdrew government funds from BUS2, who placed those funds in banks owned or run by his mates, who then used those funds as the base for a massive credit bubble which eventually led to a panic;
4. contrary to claims Jackson was anti-Rothschild, Jackson made the Rothschilds bankers to the USA!!!!!!!!!!!;
5. his mate Roger Taney, a fellow slaver, issued the decision in the case of Dredd Scott.

Do Libertarians worship Jackson?