Many conservatives I speak with can have their positions summed up as, "we oppose socialism, we just want the state to centrally plan everything."
Then when I point out that is basically socialism they respond with something like "stop being autistic."
They just don't have any grasp of politics, because of no grasp of the more fundamental philosophical concepts and so are reduced to a childish level of Trump-good, democrats-bad.
They just can't see that Trump isn't all that different from democrats. They don't have the knowledge, the principles, nor the thinking skills to even begin.

Ah yes. Because reality and practicality are totally at odds with each other, right?

In Arizona there are olive tree's, and olives, everywhere. I would love to see them being used for something other than littering the ground. Far too few taking advantage of this resource.
https://www.queencreekolivemill.com/

But yes, I agree, Trump likes to remind folks that we carry the bigger stick as they approach the negotiating table. I for one think its about damn time.

You do have a passion to use labels and propaganda, don't you? If you had a nickle for every "statist" "collectivists" etc you would be very wealthy. You should consider that your intense need to label is indicative of some deep issues with authority? You are acting just like the same liberals you decry, using the same tired arguments and passionate appeals to emotion. Try using logic, please.

Freedom, I can understand it is a big deal to ssome, as it is a specific group dedicated to it's use. My point is the market is not huge, so the impact is not an issue that will reach critical mass. Moreover, I am not sure we will see many tarriffs on consumers, I am betting Airbus will get the lions share, along with critical technical areas. That also assumes Trump actually imposes them, he tends to gather weapons and then use the threat of use to negotiate. Not much different from nuclear weapons, but the same technique. I really think he will knock down more trade barriers than create, it will just be ugly for now, because the deep state has built such a complicated mess, to make it more manipulative.

Call it what you will, truth is often denied by the ignorant and unwilling to change.You are incredibly biased, prejudiced and as much a radical as the same leftists and statists you decry. Thats ok, we live in a free country (for now). Your obsessive dedication to strict interpretation and your dogma just makes your rabbit holes only big enough for you. Well Peter is probably down there in front or behind, but ok. You should spend the same effort you spend on condemning peoples discussions in learning the difference between debate and pontification.

Past proves future again.

Past proves future.

"There is no political 'solution' to economic conditions that you don't like. Demanding such a political 'solution' to impose what you want in the economy is a statist false premise. Refusing to give you what does not morally exist, rejecting your false premises, is not a 'dodge'".

You have been answered in full. Your responses are increasingly personal attacks. "I do not 'dodge' and am not evading what you claim I 'just don't know'. Stop the personal attacks. You have no political control over other countries. There are no magical political 'solutions' for what you don't like about the internal affairs of other countries. That is not a 'dodge'. There is nothing to 'dodge'. Your wishful thinking is not the standard.

"You have no right to punish innocent American citizens with high taxes to try to impact foreign countries. Defending the rights of the individual is not a matter of what I 'don't like'. There is no excuse for conservative statism."

Stop your personal attacks. An unprincipled ends-justifies-the-means pragmatist accusation of Peter of "living in a land of philosophical fantasy" in the "clouds of fantasy and perfection in your utopian society" is a snide personal attack and an ignorant smear, and so is your latest personal attack on me.

Rejecting statism (and pragmatism) on an Ayn Rand forum is and should be routine, not an excuse for militant conservative resentment with "you have all the answers in your objectivist mind" and "people get tired of a self imposed know it all". If you don't like Ayn Rand's philosophy you are welcome to post somewhere else.

Trump has been infatuated with statist tariffs since the 1980s. "Fair and balanced" trade in the mind of a statist is not economic freedom, and neither are his "solutions" of nationalist trade wars with higher taxes punishing innocent Americans.

The "pattern" here is rejection of militant statist conservatives routinely and stubbornly promoting the violation of rights of the individual. Especially on a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism it should be no surprise that such statism is and should be rejected and denounced.

That was Peter's point, for which he is savagely 'downvoted' into oblivion in order to 'hide' all of his post by militant, anti-Ayn Rand conservatives, and which evidently went over the heads of the same anti-intellectuals who maliciously corrupt the purpose of this forum and militantly attack with seething resentment anyone who dares to defend the rights of the individual on an Ayn Rand forum.

You still haven't answered the question. You're deflecting. Nice dodge.

You still haven't answered the question. Your false claim of personal attacks is all part of your deflection. Face it, you just don't know what to do. Nice dodge.

Tariffs were not part of the "founding process" of this country. Nor are conservative appeals to "tradition" a valid argument.

Your promoting punishing innocent Americans with high taxes in order to control and manipulate behavior is a statist violation of rights and most certainly is anti-American. The use of tariffs for government interference in favoring selecting industries with coercive protectionism was an early example of the anti-individualist trend described by historian Arthur Ekirch's The Decline of American Liberalism.

There is no political "solution" to economic conditions that you don't like. Demanding such a political "solution" to impose what you want in the economy is a statist false premise. Refusing to give you what does not morally exist, rejecting your false premises, is not a "dodge".

Ayn Rand once observed that conservatives and liberals differ only in that each wants to coercively control what it believes to be most important. That used to mean liberals controlling the economy and conservatives controlling personal and social behavior. Now both want to control both realms.

I do not "dodge" and am not evading what you claim I "just don't know". Stop the personal attacks. You have no political control over other countries. There are no magical political "solutions" for what you don't like about the internal affairs of other countries. That is not a "dodge". There is nothing to "dodge". Your wishful thinking is not the standard.

You have no right to punish innocent American citizens with high taxes to try to impact foreign countries. Defending the rights of the individual is not a matter of what I "don't like". There is no excuse for conservative statism.

I see a pattern here every time someone disagrees with you it is a snide personal attack or ignorant smear. Try being a bit more creative.
Trump is trying to get a fair and balanced foreign trade. You think you have all the answers in your objectivist mind. People get tired of a self imposed know it all. We have allowed China to devastate our manufacturing base. Trump is returning much of it to the US. Record low unemployment and rising wages have been a result. All while fighting off a coup.

You still haven't answered the question. Evasion may not be dishonest or immoral, but could be applied if you just don't know the answer and wish to avoid feeling embarrassment by admitting you just don't know. Your not straight forward answer to the query indicates you know what you don't like, but you offer nothing to solve the problem. I figure you just don't know. Nice dodge.

My response here was not to question the motives in the founding of the country, but to point out tariffs and import duties were part of the founding process and, therefore, cannot be dismissed out of hand as being "anti-American". What taxes were placed on what and why by the founders and who, if anyone, was "punished" by such practices would have to be explored on a case by case basis. You still haven't offered your solution to the problem.

No one said there should be no president. Your comment shows no grasp of the reality of what you are reading here. Trump's anti-intellectual pragmatism and his chanting idolizers following the Pied Piper on the White Horse in the name of "reality" are not the standard of understanding politics.

Evasion is dishonest and immoral. You got a straightforward answer to your post, not a "dodge" or "avoidance", which is your personal attack. There are no anti-intellectual, unprincipled political "solutions" ignoring the cultural basis for the politics of a country.

Your response to my query to ascertain what your solution was to the problem was a nicely written (hence "nice") avoidance (or evasion as you just put it) to the query (hence "dodge"). Therefore my response "Nice dodge" referred to your response, not to your person. If you wish to apply my response to yourself, then that is for you to deal with. You still haven't addressed the query as to what your solution would be.

Employing conservatives' statist, collectivist premises to excuse imposing new high taxes on the innocent in this country in the name of punishing foreign governments is vicious injustice morally inexcusable, not a mere "label". Concepts have meaning. This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a place to promote unprincipled pragmatism and anti-intellectual statism while denouncing principles as "fantasy" and concepts as meaningless "labels".

Principles are not "living in a land of philosophical fantasy" in the "clouds of fantasy and perfection in your utopian society", which is a personal attack as an ignorant smear.

Advocating more leftist government is not "understanding reality", it is unprincipled Pragmatism with collectivist criteria creating more "evil and malice" -- such as imposing new high taxes on innocent Americans for price controls in the name of punishing a foreign country. Proper principles are required for understanding and living in reality. Pragmatism does not "work".

So what? The country was not "founded" on taxes or any kind of taxes. It was founded on the rights of the individual. Whatever kinds of (minimal) taxes were used in the 18th century to fund government is not an excuse to impose new high taxes on innocent Americans to punish some foreign country (and not even to fund government spending). Promoting tariffs for that citing the kinds of taxes used in the 18th century is the worst kind of conservative rationalization from "tradition" without regard to proper principles.

A "dodge" is an evasion. That is a personal attack. There is no magical, out of context political "solution" to what people do to themselves in other counties. Increasing taxes on Americans is not a substitute. There is also no magical, out of context political "solution" to the statist problems in this country -- the politics of a society depends on the basis philosophical premises widely accepted. Changing the kind of government here or anywhere else requires changing the ideas accepted within the culture. That is not an evasion.