Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trade embargo

Rate this topic


BrassDragon

Recommended Posts

A recent ARI press release (dated 10/13) contains the following:

Did they stand up to its bluster and seek to end the regime with a self-righteous, airtight trade embargo? Did they exhibit even an ounce of moral confidence? No; they evaded North Korea's vicious nature and appeased it with protection money.

Clearly this is in support of a trade embargo against North Korea.

My quesion: Is it moral, and just, for one country to forbid its citizens from trading with the citizens of another country, say, North Korea? I would feel this would be an infringement of the rights of the citizens in the country executing the trade embargo.

I think we have to make the distinction between trading with the citizens of that nation and trading with the actual government. In NoKo there may be absolutely no situation in which the former occurs, which would certainly affect any moral judgement of a trade embargo with that particular nation; because I think it's legitimate to forbid trading with an immoral group (the NoKo government, for example), but not with moral, private citizens of an immoral country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say, there is a fundamental difference between trading with the government and trading with citizens. It is not possible to trade with North Korean citizens, and all trade is with the government. I'm not certain whether direct trade with citizens in Cuba or Iran is possible, but I think it is. Direct trade with citizens of Zimbabwe is possible (except for the fact that they have nothing to trade anymore). A trade embargo is just and justified just in case the trade would have to be with the goverment and that government is threatening the US, as is the case with North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!

So would it be moral to enact a trade embargo against a nation where, say, 90% of trade is with the government and 10% is with citizens, and it would be impossible to enact an embargo that only applies to trade with the government?

(I'm thinking yes, for the same reason it's fair to use nuclear weapons on, say, NoKo, even though not all citizens are complicit in the government's crimes. It comes down to an issue of being pragmatic. But, then, where would you draw the line?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would it be moral to enact a trade embargo against a nation where, say, 90% of trade is with the government and 10% is with citizens, and it would be impossible to enact an embargo that only applies to trade with the government?
Keeping a grip on the other conditions such as the threat requirement, and indeed assuming that it is not ever (practically) possible to distinguish trade with government from trade with citizen, yes. Thus saying "trade with North Korea is allowed as long as it is with a private company" is not a self-preserving alternative to a blanket ban on trade with North Korea, because it is not possible to distinguish "trade with a North Korea private company" from "trade with the North Koream dictatorship". Theoretically, it would be, in the context "We militarily eliminate the Pyongyang dictatorship and replace it with a provisional government dedicated to the principles of capitalism". Theoretically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...