I asked you to stick to the "substance". Lets please keep to that going forward.
> Since you seem to have totally missed my point, let me try again.
"Even if you think you're saying that in good faith, don't do that here."
> The North had tariffs for its dealings with other nations.
Not the north. The united states. Tariffs are applied on a country to country basis. It's called protectionism in the united states, not northern united states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
> But internally, the North was a good approximation of a free market.
"Internally", both the north and the south had the same tariff situation because it is ONE country. Tariffs are set at a national level. In the united states, neither the north nor the south had "tariffs" against each other because they are constitutionally prohibited.
And neither the north or the south was a good approximation of a free market because the united states was a protectionist nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
> And yet, you argued with WaltherBright that you can't tariff yourself, when he clearly wasn't talking only about tariffs.
"It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do."
That's what he wrote. He claimed that tariffs doesn't make it a "not free market". But by definition, it does.
> He was talking about internal (non-tariff) restrictions that make a market non-free.
No. Once again, he was claiming that tariffs didn't make a market "non-free". But it does.
I'll leave it here because clearly you guys are just making up your own definition, making up your own histories, making up your own economic ideas, etc. And then moving the goalpost to suit your needs.
My advice, go read my links about "free market", "tariffs" and protectionism in the united states. It's hard to discuss anything when you/him refuse to accept the definitions of these words/concepts/history.