"Then why not phase out all trade?"

That would be ideal, but I'm not a fanatical idealist. I am a realist.

"by what rational principle do you distinguish what trade is to be "phased out" (forcibly suppressed) and what not?"

No "violent" force required.
Your "voluntary agreements" would decide.

But there could be a bias encouraging domestic production/consumption.

For example, if the tax system was simplified to a single bank transaction tax, foreign transactions could be taxed at a higher rate than domestic ones.

So, if under "free" trade, foreign production/consumption was more lucrative/profitable, you could even the outcomes or make domestic production/consumption more desirable.

People could always buy/sell internationally if they chose, but domestic business would have a slight advantage.

"Yours is a creed of total government power"

Nonsense. I'm simply describing what's already there.
States and their governments existed long before I was born.

I want as little government regulation as possible, socially and economically.

But not *none at all* which seems to be your sentiments, suggesting you're actually an anarchist, not a classical liberal, which is the topic of the article.

"you're thinking in vague and arbitrary generalities."

Politics is nothing but generalities.

Your anti-nationalist anarcho-libetarianism is based on generalities too.
Utopian idealist ones. Nothing but wishful thinking.

There's nothing "vague" or "arbitrary" about anything I say.

"have supplied no way by which liberalism can be reconciled with its contradictions by democracy."

Nor the potential contradictions of both with nationalism.
And I don't have to.

I didn't invent the system we live in.
I didn't create Human Nature either.

Human Nature desires all these impulses (personal liberty, social connections, group decision-making input), and each person and society attempts to reconcile them as best they can.
There are no perfect solutions.

"You confuse blah, blah, blah".

And you confuse my honest, realistic statements with the imaginary fanaticism of the boogeyman you *want* me to be.

I confused you with a serious, genuine person who wasn't just playing pedantic games.
I should have known better.

Why would it be ideal, or even better, to phase out all trade? Just imagine for a sec that no person could exchange anything with any other person. Can you see that thousands of millions of people would die of starvation, disease and exposure? Perhaps you meant something else.

"No "violent" force required."

So the tax would be voluntary, would it? No enforcement? So there'd be no restriction on foreign trade whatsoever? Well I'm inclined to agree with you.

Why should domestic trade be preferred over foreign? Suppose something could be produced overseas for $1 that cost $100 if made in Australia, and your ideal was realised of banning it, then Australians could either pay 100 times more or go without. Why would that be better?

>"Yours is a creed of total government power"

>>Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. You've just told us you think the ideal is for governments to have the power to stop all trade. You think the government has more right to decide every single transaction the people enter into, than the people do themselves. What is that but a creed of total government power?

I'm not arguing for "no government regulation" at all, but that people should be free to enter into whatever voluntary relations they want so long as they are not aggressing against the person or property of others. That's what the standard of liberal democracy, so if you really want as little regulation as possible, that's what you should be advocating, not arbitrary protectionism for no reason based on total government power over every transaction.

Which is why you can't:
a) identify any rational principle to distinguish what trade should be permitted or restricted
b) identify how the democracy you advocate could be liberal democracy
c) explain how governments are more representative of the people, than the people are by their voluntary transactions (hint: tax is not a voluntary transaction).

Perfection is not of this world, so it's a misrepresentation to suggest that's what's in issue. The issue is about what would be morally and pragmatically better, not what's perfect.

"no person could exchange anything with any other person. Perhaps you meant something else."

Yes, perhaps I did.
International trade, smartypants.

"So the tax would be voluntary? No enforcement?"

No "violence", smartypants.
You like using the term "violence" where it's inappropriate.

"[if] your ideal was realised of banning it, then Australians could either pay 100 times more or go without."

I didn't propose banning anything, smartypants.
I only proposed taxing foreign transactions at a higher rate than domestic.
So people could choose the $1 or the $100 item.
But most products would not have such a drastic discrepancy.

"You think the government has more right to decide every single transaction the people enter into, than the people do themselves."

No, they have the right to institute general rules and processes, to tax and restrict trade, which they already do *right now*.
Australians apparently accept such a system, or there'd be a revolution, with Canberra in flames.

"identify any rational principle to distinguish what trade should be permitted or restricted"

I never said that. People would decide.
All I proposed was a domestically-biased tax system.

"identify how the democracy you advocate could be liberal democracy"

There is "liberalism" and there is "democracy".
They are two distinct concepts that don't necessarily gel and can contradict each other.
Both are already accepted by Australians.

"explain how governments are more representative of the people, than the people are by their voluntary transactions"

The current government is not representative.
I support proportional representation and/or direct democracy.
Either of which, however, could still result in "enforced" laws or policies you disapprove of. Too bad.

"Perfection is not of this world, so it's a misrepresentation to suggest that's what's in issue."

Any true reconciliation of all these elements (liberalism, democracy, nationalism) would have to be "perfect" or it wouldn't be a true reconciliation.
I stated that was impossible.

"The issue is about what would be morally and pragmatically better"

Cash registers don't have a "morality" button. Irrelevant.
I've already stated (extensively) the pragmatic reasons why a domestic bias would be beneficial.
I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

"I've already stated (extensively) the pragmatic reasons why a domestic bias would be beneficial."

No you haven't. All you've said is that *if* foreign production or consumption were more lucrative, they could be taxed more, but without saying why.

And it's no use trying to defend it by saying the people could choose to pay the tax, or that the price of foreign goods wouldn't be that much cheaper. The entire point of principle is that you are trying to stop people from entering into transactions which, being consensual, are none of your or the government's business.

"No "violence", smartypants.
You like using the term "violence" where it's inappropriate."

It would only be inappropriate if the enforcement of the tax does not use or threaten violence. It is not acceptable for you to define a tax as a voluntary arrangement because both in fact and in law, tax is not voluntary, and you know it - that's why you're proposing it!

As either using or threatening force constitutes a crime of violence, as defined by the state for everyone else, please admit either that
a) payment would be voluntary, in which case it wouldn't be a tax, by definition, or
b) enforcement would involve the use or threat of violent force, in which case it's not "inappropriate" to point out this fact.
You can't have it both ways.

What we've demonstrated so far is that your proposal involves threatening to attack people for engaging in peaceful transactions with others; whilst you have not established any reason whatsoever why people engaging in peaceful transactions is bad, or threatening to attack them is good, for no other reason than that one party happens to live in Australia.

But if your theory is right, then why not ban or restrict trade between NSW and Queensland for all the same reasons? Why shouldn't consumption of goods made outside NSW be presumed bad for the "society" of NSW?

What you are advocating is national socialism, not liberal democracy.

Shockadelic, if you are under the impression that you support liberal democracy, what do you say is the principle which delimits legitimate from illegitimate governmental exercises of power?

I have no interest in further responding to your ignore-or-distort-everything-he-says game.

Adiós mi enemigo.