Who are the tariffs being imposed by? What’s the intention of the tariffs?
More context is needed.
You might want to check this out:
This still leaves all of my questions unanswered…
Chuck Norris has been in favor of the concept of tariffs.
Is Chuck Norris a Catholic moral philosopher?
Both Catholic and non-Catholic countries impose tariffs, I really don’t think it violates any premise of religion.
In any event, President Trump has stated his goal is to get rid of all tariffs and government subsidies of industry and seems to be making progress from the reports of his meeting with the EU representative this week.
To my knowledge, Chuck Norris is not a Catholic, but he has certainly been a conservative.
It’s all over the news.
The beloved US President has imposed tarriffs in good imported into the United States as a protectionist measure. This includes steel and aluminum from friends like Canada and the EU. Naturally, we’re retaliating.
Well, the OP never specified what country/situation.
For all we know, @Maxirad could be talking about Timbuktu’s tariff’s on imports of ruby slippers from Oz.
I would argue that it depends. If the government were to impose a flat tax, say 10% on all imports, that in my opinion would not violate subsidiarity. A general tax is often used to fund the government. But to tax some goods at a high percent and others lower is the government picking winners and losers and that violates subsidiarity.
No, I don’t think tariffs violate anything as long as they aren’t extreme and deprive a country of things that are necessary for survival that they can’t make on their own. I cannot believe that people in other countries don’t realize that we we have been getting the short end of the stick. Why is it fair that we have hardly any tariffs on European cars and they can have 20% or whatever it is, for example? Why is it a terrible thing for us to do the same to protect our industries and build them back up?
The answer to this isn’t always black and white. And if answered in light of the Trump Tarrifs, my answer would be as such:
I think the black and white answer is ‘yes’.
However, the substance of the issue has to be understood before becoming a ‘yes’ hawk.
Taking into account the labor unions which did much to drive the steel business overseas and their bias against worker free will sheds more light on the subject (I’m talking about ‘right to work’ and how it’s alternative is contrary to catholic teaching).
So, you wind up with a can of worms.
Also, if the push for tarrifs were brought to the Federal government by the subsidiary, the answer would be more towards “no”. So, should states have the ability to impose tarrifs? I think that would require a constitutional amendment.
The banking system and government lawyers have been picking winners and losers in this country for a long time. So, that violates subsidiarity.
Perhaps you can give some more detail, but you could be right.
Government subsidized loans for one.
The Code of Federal Regulations is industry specific for two.
I would agree that most government subsidized loans violate subsidiarity.
According to Norris, the Founding Fathers taxed imports.