Labeling something as “libertarian” isn’t an argument. But a tariff is a tax. Which means you are proposing to take money from others to subsidize people who aren’t able to compete on their merit. Why should they be subsidized? If they can’t make it in STEM they are free to get a different job. But vilifying Indians and Chinese and other immigrants, who have made our companies and economy strong, all over a small 60k visas a year, is irrational.

> Labeling something as “libertarian” isn’t an argument.

The label wasn't an argument. You're repeating the same tired old shit, like it's new and no one's ever heard of it. We've all heard it, it's old. It sounded good in the 90s, but it ain't the 90s anymore. It sounded plausible when the competitor was the Soviet economy, but that's not true anymore, either. Been there, done that.

> But a tariff is a tax.

Taxes aren't bad. You're talking about taxes like I'm expected to recoil from them in horror.

> Which means you are proposing to take money from others to subsidize people who aren’t able to compete on their merit. Why should they be subsidized?

What do you mean merit? Do you mean giving the best deal to the wealthy who'd just as well sell their countrymen up the river for an extra buck in their pocket? Being totes ok with a lower standard of living to make that deal happen?

If you think "the market" is the only judge that matters, or a fair judge, you've got problems.

> But vilifying Indians and Chinese and other immigrants, who have made our companies and economy strong, all over a small 60k visas a year, is irrational.

If you think that's mainly what's going on, you're either blind or playing the misdirection game.