Just remember, that big, blond German woman.....is a secret NAZI! Honestly, I almost missed that.

Are we gonna just forget there are snakes to fend off? Why is it always snakes?!

@@brandonrunyon oh yeah, that too... lol

🤣🤣🤣

That act belongs in a museum!

I suspect this video was made a while ago and was just released, but if he's back that's great.

hey good channels commenting on good channels

Oh dang I’m subscribed to the both of you

DAMMIT HES ONTO US

I KNEW IT!!!

@@Ueiksg You should get one. Try going to church.

I'm impressed...

@@JosefFurg1611 church already has a zombie🙏🏼🧟‍♂️✝️

Yup, all anyone is taught these days is to demand new laws.

Yeah, I'm being taught this in college currently in my macroeconomics class.

Which gender are those or they no binary? I wasn't here that day

Are any of you captains? Do you work in the maritime industry? Do you know why the jones act was created?

Oooooo.... that's good! 😅

Grape Flavor Aid

And the Mrs. Jones Act. Where we got a thing.

Ohhh that cool-aid delicious, no one could say no to it, strangely enough though not many went for seconds i dont understand why :P

😂

I’m back and not going anywhere

@@Ueiksg dude lmaooo

@@Ueiksg Definitely not from port to port...

@@Ueiksg I like your bluegrass tribute band.

@@Ueiksg lol

we all do

Interesting comment. Can't help to feel that your being a lil bit sassy though. But, what do u really think about this so called law?

This law is 122 years old

I guess I didn’t realize he ranted about other stuff.

Check out his rant from 2 weeks ago. "America had lost every war we fought." It about taxes and civil liberties that were enacted for each war that were not repealed once that war was over. Which is a major factor in why we are taxed so much.

Only one senator tried hard to fix or get rid off the Jones act……. Hint Puertoricans voted against him. Sen. McCain

Getting goods to there after the hurricane was near impossible too

@@edc6644 McCain gave us Obamacare. He didn't like the Jones Act but forcing us all to buy health insurance is fine.

Well said.

1. we're not going to be in a large scale war in our lifetime 2. any modern war with China wouldn't involve ships like it did in the early 20th century 3. driving up the cost of shipping hurts American consumers

@@aetas4500 You missed the point of the OP. Total destruction of shipping capacity is CRITICAL for a sovereign country, not just for war, but economic independence. The lack of semiconductor capacity outside China is the current "war" that is costing the rest of the world bigly now. Also caused by not ensuring local sovereign independence.

@@aetas4500 In addition to the other reply: All assumptions that we can’t afford to make. If the Chinese move against Taiwan, you may well get to see why. How will we resupply Taiwan, Japan or the Philippines if China moves against them? By airplane? Japan *was* strangled by submarine warfare and and an insufficient merchant marine once already. And the Chinese wouldn’t dare try to disrupt our coastwise trade over what they perceive as a vital national interest? Really? I guess no one would dare hack our important national infrastructure either, especially not for much more paltry reasons - like the Colonial Pipeline or meat packing plants.

Generic Comment, you made the best post I have yet seen on this thread.

exactly, The jones act also prohibits Lakers from taking the most direct route on the great lakes between those ports, do you think lakers are going to be a major concern of anything the Jones act is wanting to do

What are “lakers?”

@@Pau11Wa11……it’s great “lakers” as in Great Lake shipping vessels. He’s talking about the routes that good must take between Canadian and American ports on the Great Lakes.

Explain. Be specific. Why couldn’t Hawaii be that now? International 0:01 ships can still dock there. It would only require that American ships take the good from there to other American ports. Again. Be specific.

@@longsleevethong1457 Often ships drop off some cargo in a port and then continue to the next port. Without the Jones act, ships from Asia could drop off cargo in Hawaii and then continue on to Los Angeles for example.

Was about to say the same thing. I agree with the sentiment of the video, but that was a bad comparison on their part.

To some extent, yes, but “absurd and foolish” is also a blanket statement. I-95 and I-81 are frequently jammed with trucks, yet both run parallel to the Atlantic coast and link New England / New York / Canada to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn’t have to be 40, but could we do much better than 2%?

@@usnbostx2 Companies that move products with trucks are not going to be using ships, they have entirely different purposes. If I want to move a pallet of goods up the coast, I'm not going to wait a month to get it on a coastal freighter. If I'm moving 5000 tons of wheat I might have used a ship, but the alternative is rail, not trucks.

@@usnbostx2 How much of the traffic jams are cause by LONG HAUL trucking instead of just local routes? Just because it's loaded on a truck doesn't mean it's driving 4 states away. No one is going to opt for local delivery traffic by sea, especially if those deliveries are anywhere inland. Also, it could be that the most efficient method is by rail. All we can do is reduce regulations and let the free market figure it out.

@@usnbostx2 true. Boat traffic on I95 is typically very light.

As a Naval Architect can you speak to how long it takes to build a say 800' tanker? People on here think you can just buy one at walmart the moment a war starts.

Yeah the other day I was planning on invading Germany so I rowed over to dollar general and boat a 1:1 working model of the Lusitania. Dang krauts torpedoed it again but it was a good plan

You men Joan in the sack?

@@shausen1179 I'm well aware of her nickname.

He's Andrew Heaton, and so are we.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Just seafaring vessels.

If it were at all consistent it would apply to planes as well..

@@donaldpyper4627 Cabotage rules do.

I am a Jones Act mariner and I support repealing the US ship building requirement of the Jones Act. Beyond that I support cabotage rules, as is the case in every other transportation sector in these United States.

@@dutchtyphoid Just say that you are against freedom and Liberty. It's much easier.

Not the Jones act, but similar logic. You have the same principle for pretty much every form of transport, like truck shipping.

Because of cabotage, yes. Look up the freedoms of the air

This reminds me of a similar, but equally bad law. When I was in college, cab fare from Cambridge to Logan Airport was double the standard rate, because Cambridge taxis were not allowed to pick up passengers at Logan, which is in Boston, so you had to pay the taxi's return rate as well.

Caveat: I have not checked this. There is a law called the Passenger Vessel Services Act which essentially does the same as the Jones Act but for - passengers (but for ships not airplanes). It dates back to the 1880's. That's the reason why non US-flagged cruise ships must always stop off at a foreign port before returning to the US port they departed from. My guess is a similar law was passed for airlines when that technology became commercially viable. Hence, no Lufthansa flights between NY and LA...

@@gregthebaritone We had foreign built ships manned by Americans before WW1 until these ships were called to service in Europe. And why will our military order foreign made ships and equipments and be at the mercy of foreigners?? The Jones Act did energized ship-building industry (expertise, capital, experience..etc) before the start of WW2, and the benefits were reaped by looking at our industrial output during WW2 . ...... ...... What's wrong with protectionism per say??. Bla bla bla!! .... Americans should be the primary beneficiaries of commerce. So protectionism is cool unless it's shown otherwise by convincing evidence. So far, except with Puerto Rico (and give can grant a waiver now an d then when an emergency occurs) we are doing fine with Jones Act. A hundred years later and what's the problem?

Massatucky isn't real, but then again neither is Wyoming and nobody makes a big deal about that.

Isn’t this one of Barry Obama’s 57 states?

Yeah but that doesn't work, which was stated in the video. We have a overly large fleet of inefficient and slow semi trucks. Many of these shipping companies are foreign-owned. How does that help us at all? What is wrong with foreign-built ships crewed by Americans? One major prohibitive cost, which was also mentioned in the video, is ship building. Did you even watch the video?

@@jimlovesgina Reason didn't do a very good job with this video, and they can't be expected to in six minutes.. There are foreign built ships that are flagged and crewed by US citizens. I've served on some myself-don't forget to pack your international outlet adapters when going to an unfamiliar vessel, or you're gonna have a bad time😉 Foreign built ships can serve in the US Merchant fleet, they just cannot be BUILT for the US Merchant fleet. Take this video for what it is-six minutes of jokes about things that most people (including the host who clearly spent about an hour researching the topic) just barely, vaguely understand. Then take it from someone who makes their living on the water, has a VERY clear understanding of the intricacies of the Jones act, maritime law, and serves as an officer of the US Merchant Marine. The Jones act, while not perfect, is VERY good for the United States, her merchant fleet, her mariners, national security, and as a general rule, the shipping that takes place.

@@jimlovesgina I'm not convinced that it simply "doesn't work". There is a US ship building, crew training and so forth, and there are several industries that have lacked similar protections that just don't exist in the US anymore (for now). I'm less concerned about who crews the ship than who can create ships and crews. The lead time on those sorts of industries and systems is enormous, and the expertise needed to build them can be lost, increasing that lead time further. A naval power that off shores the institutional knowledge and infrastructure for its own merchant marine would be, frankly, too dumb to live very long. I've no doubt the Jones Act creates drag on the economy, and I'm all for having a better way to do it. I don't know what that is, and I'd be pretty cautious about exposing such vital and foundational pieces of our physical security, economic security and ability to project power. The video doesn't give much consideration to this problem, and certainly doesn't address it., and as much as I support Reason and it's ideas, this sort of thing is a real blind spot for them.

@@andrewjones2453 you are correct about the video not addressing physical/economical security and the projection of power. These are the real reasons behind the Jones act that Reason ignored. These are also the reasons that our fleet has to be crewed by Americans. We probably don't want one of the pillars of our national security commanded and crewed by Chinese citizens, for example. Just like building ships, the lead time on training crews must be taken into account as well. Only the lead time is MUCH longer. A basic deck officer generally spends four years at a maritime academy. It could take fifteen years to make a Captain. Just becoming an Able Bodied seaman with a limited tonnage rating requires 18 months of sea service. That's time actually spent at sea-your days off don't count. Unlimited tonnage? Three years AT SEA. As you can see, this is a a pipeline that we must keep flowing, as experienced crews can not be made quickly. The US Merchant fleet is essentially an inactive branch of the military standing by in reserve to be activated during wartime. This, and the extreme lead times on qualified crews and leadership are the reasons our merchant vessels have to be crewed by US citizens. I'm a big fan of Reason as well, but the Jones act is more complex than, "government regulation bad, free market good." It's kind of like saying we should buy our tanks and fighter jets from China and Russia because they can make them cheaper, then crew them with Guatemalans because free market.

@@CMDR.Gonzo.von.Richthofen I think you would agree that the Merchant Marine we have now probably isn’t sufficient already, but at least it may be enough to forme a cadre to train up greater numbers of merchant mariners if needed. Not so sure about shipbuilding capacity - doesn’t look good as far as I can tell.

Rework, sure. Abolish, no.

That's what contracts, rather than laws, are for.

You are right, however, this should be left up to the laws of supply and demand. My brother builds steel buildings for a living. We have a choice between c-iron made in the USA or Mexico. The Mexico stuff is flimsy and rusts easy. The stuff from the US is strong and doesn't rust as much. When my brother builds a building for a customer, he gives them the option of paying more for the US steel or less for the Mexico steel. The people who go for the US steel are usually his favorite customers to work with, and the cheapskates who want to save 500 usually are the ones he doesn't want to work with.

This. There isn't just "steel" or "stainless steel" there are massive actual types and quality with different composite blends, strength, and specific use and resistance. 1095, 440, 550 all are EXTREMELY different metals..

And those are just the US SAE grades. China and even the Europeans use different standards.@@MrJoshcc600

Maybe it would be possible to alter the Jones act to make it lighter without completely removing it.

That "loophole" still exists. It's how they use foreign boats from Washington to Alaska. They stop in Canada.

@@z987k - thanks for the info!

@@z987k Wow, someone in the comments section who actually knows something about the Jones act👍🏼

Just slap an American flag on it.

Don't forget the "maritime" part. Lol

Yes, exactly. It is bad enough that most of our oceanic trade is done by foreigners. What happens if they don’t want to risk coming here because of a war or some other reason? Everyone posting here should see what and how much material is shipped on the Intercostal Waterway, on our rivers and in coastwise trade and then imagine it all being disrupted suddenly. If you thought the effects of the Colonial Pipeline disruption were bad..... Watch what happens when foreigners control all the waterborne transport of materials and those foreigners suddenly decide to stop working here for whatever reason.

@@midtownmariner5250 the libertarian argument to that is “the costs are as high as they are due to government meddling with the market”, which is a point with which I agree. However, without taking steps to reduce government meddling and allow the market to react before repealing the Jones act, I don’t see any other outcome beside what I said in my previous comment

@@redram5150 repealing the Jones act would have massive negative consequences beyond the cost of goods going down. As a Libertarian, I am of course against government meddling, but our merchant fleet has responsibilities far more broad reaching than just making goods more affordable. Namely national security. Besides, most of the goods shipped here by sea are already coming via foreign ships flying flags of convenience, crewed by low wage foreign mariners in the first place.

@@CMDR.Gonzo.von.Richthofen to call it a “matter of national security” devalues the term. If one were to stretch it far enough one could say not having domestic light bulb production is a matter of national security.

@@redram5150 would you have Russia or China resupply our nuclear subs underway then? It is the US Merchant fleet that handles all US naval replenishment at sea, you know. Suppose a major foreign power decides that they don't want foreign flagged vessels supplying the US with necessary resources any more. Hmmm.... If only we had our own fleet that could bring those resources... And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Maintaining our own merchant fleet is ABSOLUTELY a matter of national security. You go be an expert in your field, as you clearly don't know much about mine. Everyone watches a six minute long, wildly inaccurate video full of bad jokes, and all of a sudden they know all about the intricacies of international shipping and the maritime industry🙄

Yeah, it would be so easy to just keep the labor laws part and skip all the other nonsense. I'm pretty certain European operators would be able to respect them.

Passing laws to prevent economic progress creates more problems long term. The economic reality is completely different from what it was 100 years ago will be completely different in another century.

Why are all the thoughtful comments way down the comment list and the fanboys are all near the top?

Ah. You might have missed the part where it can be cheaper to import foreign goods rather to buy American because the cost of shipping from US to US ports is too expensive.

@@PeteSmoot Yeah, fuck that. 1) The reason those goods are cheaper despite the increased distance is because they're abusing their workers and 2) because the companies aren't paying american employees whilst they're charging americans for those goods, this creates an imbalance where value is siphoned outside the american economy which causes more damage to that companies profits than the short term gains excuses.

I like to imagine that the recent hack to our oil pipeline was actually done by Big Oil to create an argument to kill the Jones Act.

@@somebonehead Well, they are already sneaking in some foreign workers and vessels to work in our offshore oil fields (in construction anyway - not supply). Yet if you go to Brazil or Australia or many other foreign countries to work in their oil fields (on a US flagged vessel with a US crew) they take off all but a few Americans and put on foreigners. So it is not a level playing field to begin with - plenty of nations cheat here and there and it hurts us. We need to look out for our interests like everyone else does -especially interests with long term strategic implications.

Bla bla bla!! .... Americans should be the primary beneficiaries of commerce. So protectionism is cool unless it's shown otherwise by convincing evidence. So far, except with Puerto Rico (and give can grant a waiver now an d then when an emergency occurs) we are doing fine with Jones Act.

Did you not catch the part where it has the opposite effect and reduced the fleet size? Most acts of Congress have the opposite effect of their intent.

@@jishcatg reduces it in times of peace, says nothing about what happens when the Chinese decide we don't need goods anymore.

@@jishcatg also, ships cost more to build here because the government made it that way. We also pay 10x more for doctors and real-estate than most other nations.

Protectionism doesn’t work. Period. Also you think the Chinese are the only shipbuilders or allies out there?

There's less demand for ships because more cargo is transported by trucks or other means.

@@JonathanRossRogers I think that's a big factor here, and it's driven by landlocked population centers in the US vs port- or port-adjacent cities in Europe.

@@jamespfitz I'm not sure there's any disagreement. Maybe there's some uncertainty about what the video means by "shipping." I understood "shipping" to mean the carrying of cargo on ships. Maybe you understood it to mean the carrying of cargo via any means?

It's a nice theory. Too bad it didn't work out that way. The US has basically no commercial shipbuilding capacity any more, which is why Jones act ships are so hard to come by and so expensive. Furthermore, there's no particular reason to think British or Mexican crews will refuse to ship tanks to Iraq. I mean, yeah, one crew might but there are lots of other crews to hire. In case you didn't notice, our last two major Middle East adventures didn't seem to have trouble finding shipping. I doubt those were entirely Jones Act ships. In the mean time, we're absolutely screwing over the people in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Massatucky, the environment, and every other citizen who pays extra for goods because we're using trucks or trains instead of cheap shipping.

@@PeteSmoot We had foreign built ships manned by Americans before WW1 until these ships were called to service in Europe. And why will our military order foreign made ships and equipments and be at the mercy of foreigners?? The Jones Act did energized ship-building industry (expertise, capital, experience..etc) before the start of WW2, and the benefits were reaped by looking at our industrial output during WW2 . ...... ...... What's wrong with protectionism per say??. Bla bla bla!! .... Americans should be the primary beneficiaries of commerce. So protectionism is cool unless it's shown otherwise by convincing evidence. So far, except with Puerto Rico (and we can give a waiver now and then when an emergency occurs) we are doing fine with Jones Act. A hundred years later and what's the problem?

Yeah he complains American built is more expensive.... Because we pay Americans more then slave labor like other cheaper countries. Which do you want? Higher pay or cheaper ships? Grey rid of Jones act and those higher paying America jobs go poof to overseas cheap labor

This is a good question.

Yes it was heavily relied on in WW2 to supply goods to troops abroad and maintain the ports. Without it we would not have stood a chance because of the already depleted Allied fleet. The German U-boats where very effective but could not keep up with the number of ships created and put in service by the US.

@@pttugbud Great points. Also, a modern attack submarine is vastly more capable than the subs that the Germans used to (almost) throttle transatlantic supplies. This was at a time when our shipbuilding industry was much, much more robust. Even the Iranian Kilo class subs are far superior to what the Germans had, not to mention the capabilities of what the Russians and Chinese have. Yet we have let our merchant fleet and our shipyards atrophy and I fear we will one day pay a severe price for that - and now people want to make it worse by getting rid of the Jones Act?

@@pttugbud "Without it we would not have stood a chance" How do you even demonstrate that this is true? We might have had an even larger fleet of foreign-built ships manned by Americans. Simply asserting that we were better off is absurd. You can't even reasonable quantify the effects of the Jones Act until you get rid of it.

@@midtownmariner5250 The guy in this video clearly has no idea what he's talking about on this one, nor does anyone who isn't connected to the maritime industry. On the surface, these all seem like good points, but the reason these protections exist lie much deeper. Reason dropped the ball here. They did about an hours worth of homework on a thousand year old industry that most people forget even exists in the first place.

How about this: we scrap the Jones Act, but we move funding into hiring people to move cargo cheaply and efficiently build ships in the U.S. with automated factories, we then recoup the costs by just having that extra $64 billion in economic productivity (which means tax revenues that can pay for that system).

@@evannibbe9375 So remove the protections of good paying American jobs and bring cheap foreign labor into the country?

Actually, the whole video is disingenuous. It's really just six minutes of marginal jokes about something he doesn't understand beyond face value. Concerning shipping via trucks, what he failed to mention is that a MASSIVE amount of shipping does take place between states on water, as most states aren't actually landlocked. Our network of rivers, inland waterways, canals, and the great lakes moves FAR more tonnage than trucks could ever dream of.

@@CMDR.Gonzo.von.Richthofen he said that, 2% of the shipping is on water

Why is it the Jones act is temporarily on hold during emergencies? 🤔 I thought that was a good point. I will agree I don't know if he is correct on all his points but the most important point is why the Jones act?

Most cities in the US are inland, most of the people in the US live in cities with large water ports

I wish Vegas was in Idaho, instead of a shitty, borderline lethal state like Nevada.

That's a good point. Comparisons with Europe may not be the strongest way to oppose the Jones Act.

@@JonathanRossRogers Comparisons with Europe as an ideal are never a good idea

Bla bla bla!! .... Americans should be the primary beneficiaries of commerce. So protectionism is cool unless it's shown otherwise by convincing evidence. So far, except with Puerto Rico (and give can grant a waiver now an d then when an emergency occurs) we are doing fine with Jones Act.

We had foreign built ships manned by Americans before WW1 until these ships were called to service in Europe. And why will our military order foreign made ships and equipments and be at the mercy of foreigners?? The Jones Act did energized ship-building industry (expertise, capital, experience..etc) before the start of WW2, and the benefits were reaped by looking at our industrial output during WW2 . ...... ...... What's wrong with protectionism per say??. Bla bla bla!! .... Americans should be the primary beneficiaries of commerce. So protectionism is cool unless it's shown otherwise by convincing evidence. So far, except with Puerto Rico (and we can grant a waiver now and then when an emergency occurs) we are doing fine with Jones Act. A hundred years later and what's the problem?

Thanks. Saved me a lot of typing for this simplistic and naive analysis.

Spot on analogy.

Exactly, the problem with many libertarians is they want to do away with all protectionism. But from our founding we have always had a robust conversation about the degree of protectionism that's actually required. Anyone saying the answer is, "no protectionism," is history-blind and naive.

As far as mariners, the Jones Act sucks.

As far as American Mariners, it keeps what little that remains of the US Merchant Marine in existence. If a serious war breaks out, do you think $5 per hour foreign mariners are going to want to risk carrying any of our goods? During the Gulf Wars, how much of our stuff was carried to theater by foreign mariners on foreign ships? Not a good situation.

@@midtownmariner5250 Like a traditional war is even going to break out.

@@aetas4500 Put a few Iranian Kilo Class subs with nothing to loose off our coasts and see what happens. Also, how much of our stuff was transported on foreign ships during the gulf wars? They weren’t “total” wars. But it goes beyond war. Trade on the seas is vital to us and our allies. If it gets disrupted for whatever reason, war or no war, we are in big trouble both here and abroad.

@@midtownmariner5250 We shouldn't even have military alliances to begin with

Just a spoon full of sugar helps the propaganda go down. - Julie Andrews

Easiest way would be to just do what Jeffersonian would do. Out right ignore the damn despotic law and state that all laws expire after 27 years (or half the age of a human...granted I like the 27 years better 😉)

The great thing about a divided congress is that they can't pass any new dumb laws. The bad thing is that they can't repeal old dumb laws either.

@@aetas4500 pretty sure in any state the government always passes more laws than it removes and will always do that hence why what Jeffersonian said in ~1800 was so important that all laws naturally expire

The easiest path would be to elect a President who would, say, sign an executive order to remove two old laws for every new one.

Because worthwhile ships for shipping, especially the infamous ship shipping ship that ships shipping ships, are very big and easy to track.

$5 says at least one shipyard fudged the invoice for some I-beams.

Hawaii, and the territories need an exception to the Jones Act. Islands in the middle of the ocean should be able to take advantage of freight routes that are already going across the ocean, even if foreign owned.

I love reason TV, but they have a kindergarteners grasp on this issue.

ports were flooded with cargo after hurricanes... wasnt shortage of shipping it was shortage of internal infrastructure after hurricane... sure lets sell more ports to Arabs ... without Jones Act US Merchant Marine would be worse state than it already is... might as well have our nuclear material transported by CCP, also there is a difference in foreign steel... check all rusting stainless steel made in China and lead coated children's toys

Or they would have boomed because trade would have been more profitable on them without a bunch of extra overhead. I don't know if you've been to Portland any time lately but the port of Portland is as close to extinct as you can be without actually being extinct. There are brick warehouses that have been empty since world war II all the way down the shore front. Making that whole thing complicated and expensive isn't making people do more of it.

Would u mind being more specific?

@@unagjac890 Trump humpers don't know how to be specific

@@aetas4500 There are plenty of other posts that have enumerated (and elaborated on) those reasons.

Protectionism doesn't work in the sense of basic economics, which was mentioned in the video and has been observed many times throughout history. Libertarianism (small l) is property rights derived from self-ownership and the nonaggression principle, meaning you don't use force against someone unless you are defending yourself against someone using force against you or someone else. Libertarianism is not globalism nor is it anti-nationalism. Where do you even get that idea? Anyway, I don't see how permitting foreign-built ships to freely move goods and services between a country's ports will in any way diminish its sovereignty.

@@jimlovesgina the era of the Tariff of Abominations is a specific instance of protectionism benefitting the country that adopted draconian, protective economic measures. The prohibitively high tariffs caused a boom in local production that paved the way for the second industrial revolution which in turn ushered in the gilded age wherein the middle class expanded dramatically. Libertarianism is such a wonderful idea, but it is impossible in practice just like communism. It relies on a non-existent raft of perfect equalities; equality of intellect, capacity, geography, capability. But libertarian structure has no answer for when a neighbor begins stockpiling weapons and mercenaries without violating the NAP. It also cannot function when "private" entities work with elements of the State to suppress thought (see: Twitter and Facebook and Amazon and...). Underneath a small, highly capable arbiter of force, libertarian structures can flourish. But a libertarian superstructure is just an opportunity for conquest waiting for a bad actor. Another inherent weakness is libertarian thought being confronted by dishonest memetic transfer, or ideas cloaked in a false front. This is one some entity or group is making a concerted effort to extinguish some other group, but they disguise their crusade with half-truths and misdirection. Small l libertarians are wonderful people. I'm building a family with one, in fact. But they are hobbits, and they are completely incapable of dealing with Orcs and evil wizzards. Wealth creation, affluence, and ease must be secondary to sovereignty so long as adversaries and bad actors exist.

Don’t be silly, women can’t man stuff.

Exactly.

They have to visit a foreign port between US ports. So dropping off cargo in Miami, then going to the Bahamas, then Jacksonville is fine. However, Miami then directly to Jacksonville, the ship would need to be US flagged.

Except it hasn't succeeded. The US ship-building industry is practically nonexistent. A handful of government-funded shipyards aren't going to win a war. The only "large" ships the US makes are US gov. ships. The rest are tugs and a handful of fishing vessels.

Why would you ever want to transport foreign cargo between US ports? It is bad enough holding stuff in bonded warehouses. Shuffling cargo between bonded warehouses has got to be such a niche application that it doesn't really need to be mentioned in a 6 minute video on the Jones Act.

@@zirconiumdiamond1416 It's not hard to imagine Canadian ships taking things from Alaska to Oregon (or the reverse) or a ship from Japan taking things from California to Hawaii on its return trip.

Whether it's "US cargo" or "foreign cargo" is irrelevant. A Canadian ship can't take Russian goods or US goods from Alaska to any other place in the US.