Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trade embargoes

Rate this topic


Mr. Wynand

Recommended Posts

Why can't you freely trade weapons of mass destruction? I thought that's what they've been doing all these years!

What are you talking about?

Since when is Capitalism based on the protection of individual rights? Capitalism requires a proper foundation that respects individual rights but I thought that was the job of a proper government - to protect individual rights so that people could engage in peaceful production and trade.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*I use "citizen" here but, essentially, the US government is an agent of anyone who is located in its jurisdiction.

No, the US government's job is to uphold the law (provide justice) in its jurisdiction. That means punish criminals who are in its jurisdiction, or criminals who committed crimes in its jurisdiction.

Can you provide data of a man who committed a crime in another country with no relation to anything revolving around a US jurisdiction (ie not committed on a US national, on nominal US soil such as the embassy, against a US corporation, etc.) and was sentenced and served time in a US jail?

Yes, we send soldiers to jail all the time for crimes against foreigners. What do you think the basis is for a murder, theft, assault etc charge (as opposed to a "code of conduct" related charge) against a soldier, if not that he violated the rights of a foreigner, on foreign soil?

Then there's this.

And there's the fact that federal and local law enforcement agencies routinely pursue criminals who are wanted for crimes on foreign soil, arrest and extradite them. And these criminals are extradited based on the rulings of a an American judge, and only if he meets the description "criminal" by American standards. Isn't that an act of justice, and also an act aimed at protecting Americans from criminals among them?

Are you saying that all that is done just as a favor to foreign governments, and if these foreign governments weren't (rightfully) demanding that these criminals be tried where they commited their crimes, we should just let them free in the US?

Cutting off trade with a country is not a function of a proper government.

The proper function of the government is to use defensive force to prevent crimes and retributive force to punish crimes. If trading with a country constitutes a crime (because you are aiding the enemy or are complicit in the crime of enslaving someone), why would the government allow such crimes? On what basis should the gov. differentiate between criminals, currently on US soil, who commited their crimes in the US vs. abroad?

To AllmenareIslands: you already replied to the question above: you said that the government has no right to prevent any crimes. Then you said that you would still accept Police protection, so I'm all out of arguments on that. That's an obvious contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake, does the government then have the right to force Wal-mart to close, because it is said that Wal-mart uses foreign slave labor to make their products?

The government has no right to act arbitrarily, based on "what is said". Why do you ask?

Who decides what slave labor is?

No one. It has already been decided: slave labor is that labor which is done by slaves.

Slaves are people who are held and forced to work against their will, as the property of a slave master or the State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the US government's job is to uphold the law (provide justice) in its jurisdiction. That means punish criminals who are in its jurisdiction, or criminals who committed crimes in its jurisdiction.

Yes, we send soldiers to jail all the time for crimes against foreigners. What do you think the basis is for a murder, theft, assault etc charge (as opposed to a "code of conduct" related charge) against a soldier, if not that he violated the rights of a foreigner, on foreign soil?

Then there's this.

And there's the fact that federal and local law enforcement agencies routinely pursue criminals who are wanted for crimes on foreign soil, arrest and extradite them. And these criminals are extradited based on the rulings of a an American judge, and only if he meets the description "criminal" by American standards. Isn't that an act of justice, and also an act aimed at protecting Americans from criminals among them?

Are you saying that all that is done just as a favor to foreign governments, and if these foreign governments weren't (rightfully) demanding that these criminals be tried where they commited their crimes, we should just let them free in the US?

I don't think any of this is applicable to doing business with Cubans. Again, the US has no interest in prosecuting people for trading with Cubans. Not to mention that it isn't a crime to trade with a mafia don - only to actually be a mafia don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To AllmenareIslands: you already replied to the question above: you said that the government has no right to prevent any crimes. Then you said that you would still accept Police protection, so I'm all out of arguments on that. That's an obvious contradiction.

Jake, what I'm concerned about is pro-active measures enacted in the name of "preventing crime," but which actually turn out to be just more of the usual government intervention. Proper government intervention would in fact be a police officer coming upon a crime in progress, and preventing it from continuing. I think it's important to define what we mean by "preventing" crime," don't you?

Since when is Capitalism based on the protection of individual rights? Capitalism requires a proper foundation that respects individual rights but I thought that was the job of a proper government - to protect individual rights so that people could engage in peaceful production and trade.

(Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19.)

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Protection and Recognition are two different concepts, Myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of this is applicable to doing business with Cubans. Again, the US has no interest in prosecuting people for trading with Cubans. Not to mention that it isn't a crime to trade with a mafia don - only to actually be a mafia don.

Well, that depends. If you're a fence for the Mafia, that's a crime. And in general, there are no Objectivist principles which would give you the right to have Mafia dons as trading partners, so someone preventing you from doing business with a Mafia don (by excluding that don from the economy the best they can, as a form of punishment) is not a violation of any rights.

We only have the right (as defined by Objectivism) to trade earned value for earned value. The don's values are not earned. You can't use Rand's philosophy to claim that you're entitled to trade for something that isn't the rightful property of your trading partner. She would hate you for it, the same way she hated Libertarians for dtealing her ideas, and using them out of context.

I did say it's probably time for a change in relations with Cuba in one of my posts above, but I'm not very familiar with what exactly Obama is planning to do, and what the Cubans are willing to do in return. There does seem to be an opportunity for some positive change in Cuba, if only Fidel would die already.

Again, the US has no interest in prosecuting people for trading with Cubans.

I detect a touch of pragmatism in that. As I said, the same principles which apply to other rights violators apply to people who enable dictators.

Let me put it this way: another equally pragmatic thing to say would be that Germany or Israel have no interest in spending a lot of money to put on trial and convict a 90 year old Nazi war criminal who has terminal lung cancer. They do have a quite pressing interest to convict him, on principle.

The same way, if trading with Cubans constitutes the violation of a human being's rights, then the US should take action to prevent people in its jurisdiction from doing it. On principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake, what I'm concerned about is pro-active measures enacted in the name of "preventing crime," but which actually turn out to be just more of the usual government intervention.

Claiming the right to participate in the ownership of slaves on foreign soil is a strange way to show that concern.

Plus, it is the wrong concern to have. It is perfectly rational to welcome all measures which prevent crime (pro-active or otherwise), as long as they don't violate someone's rights. As Myself pointed out, you are wrong in thinking that individual rights are not the foundation of Capitalism.

Capitalism is indeed based on the recognition, protection, enforecement, etc. of individual rights, by the Law and by the State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protection and Recognition are two different concepts, Myself.

Really? Let's say the US government decided to "recognize" we had rights and violate them anyway. They'd still be "recognizing" them as they kicked down your door and stuck a gun to your head if protection was not implied in recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Let's say the US government decided to "recognize" we had rights and violate them anyway. They'd still be "recognizing" them as they kicked down your door and stuck a gun to your head if protection was not implied in recognition.

But that is exactly the current situation!!!! Protection is neither implicit nor explicit. "Recognition" of rights is contained in The Constitution and Bill of Rights. The means to abridge rights is at the same time also provided for, i.e., legal permission to abridge those rights via taxation.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claiming the right to participate in the ownership of slaves on foreign soil is a strange way to show that concern.

When government has the right to confiscate our wealth & income on their whim, to that extent we are slaves. It becomes a matter of degree, but no government is currently refraining from such policies (wealth confiscation.)

Plus, it is the wrong concern to have. It is perfectly rational to welcome all measures which prevent crime (pro-active or otherwise), as long as they don't violate someone's rights.

Very thin line with "pro-active" measures. We need some examples but I can't think of any just yet. Have to come back to this point.

As Myself pointed out, you are wrong in thinking that individual rights are not the foundation of Capitalism.

Capitalism is indeed based on the recognition, protection, enforecement, etc. of individual rights, by the Law and by the State.

Capitalism has it has been tried so far has NOT been pursued on that basis, which is why it didn't last. Close, but no cigar. The fact that both taxation and slavery were included from the beginning should tell you that. So, slavery was fought over and finally removed from the legal set-up, to be replaced with income taxes (making slaves of everyone, not just one race.)

Here's an interesting article from the Mises Institute. http://mises.org/story/372

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When government has the right to confiscate our wealth & income on their whim, to that extent we are slaves.

I defined slavery in Post Nr. 28 of this thread. You aren't challenging my definition, you're ignoring it. Unless you have a reason why my definition is wrong, I'll be sticking to it.

Also, I need some clarification:

In your opinion, is anyone in current day America entitled to any type of justice, and if so, which should be the entities providing that justice for them?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your definitions of slavery and justice, Jake, we should immediately cease trade with China.

I am not being pragmatic, I am simply pointing out that there is no way to make an Objective law dictating when and how a nation's economy becomes a 'slavery.' The principle which guides my thoughts in this matter is the one San cited in post 22.

A government has an obligation to protect the rights of its own people, what other governments do to other people is #1. not our problem and #2. not our business. If the government of another country violates the rights of its people then the people of that country should revolt, and provided that our government has not been silly enough to embargo that country, the revolutionaries might be able to buy the weapons and supplies needed from us in order to affect change in their country.

If you are of the opinion that it -is- our responsibility to prevent other countries from violating the individual rights of its people then, we would declare that that foreign government is no longer a legitimate government, and then invade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your definitions of slavery and justice, Jake, we should immediately cease trade with China.

If you disagree with my definitions of slavery and justice, tell me what's wrong with them, and then define them better yourself.

Bringing up China is a complication , because it's a mixed economy. It would be pointless to discuss China relations if we can't even understand each other on what slavery is.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading VoS yesterday and I believe this quotation fits this thread:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers
Collectivized "Rights", pg 122

It is not the U.S.'s (or Canada's) responsibility to prevent other countries from violating individual rights, but it does have the moral right to if it decides that that is in it's own self-interest. But only if it replaces that government with one that recognizes individual rights, not just leave it open for another crackpot dictator.

I think in this context of a trade embargo, that the U.S. has deemed it to be in it's self-interest not to trade with Cuba, ie a known criminal, thug, gangster, mafia don. Whether or not the trade embargo was really the correct option, I don't think anyone can say for sure. Maybe continued trade would've brought more wealth to the country and turned it around, similar to China. Or maybe Castro would've embezzled it all and the people could have another revolution...who knows?

But being in Canada, our government decided to continue trade with Cuba. It certainly hasn't helped further communist goals there, except maybe in prolonging the dictatorship. But I think some money has at least trickled down.

In the case of the trade embargo as an infraction of an individuals right to free trade: yes you should be allowed to trade with whomever you please, as long as they are not a criminal or it's not an illegal trade. You can buy and sell marijuana - but you go to jail because it's illegal. Just because the law is immoral doesn't give you the right to break the law. Also, the police can prevent you from buying or selling marijuana by cutting off the supply. I think in this case, a trade embargo is 1) a recognition of the fact that Cuba is a criminal country (ie does not recognize individual rights) and being a moral country, the U.S. does not trade with them, and 2) is a prevention of crime (ie trading with criminals) by cutting off supply.

So, to answer the main question: yes, a country should have trade embargoes with countries that it considers criminal, especially if it is at war with those countries. To continue to trade with a criminal is to legitimize his actions.

Edited by Chris.S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defined slavery in Post Nr. 28 of this thread. You aren't challenging my definition, you're ignoring it. Unless you have a reason why my definition is wrong, I'll be sticking to it.

Also, I need some clarification:

In your opinion, is anyone in current day America entitled to any type of justice, and if so, which should be the entities providing that justice for them?

I didn't ignore your definition - I responded to you in the last post of page 1. I think we are closer than not to 100% slavery. I agreed with you that we do not have 100% slave conditions ... yet. However, even in America I do think it's only a matter of time.

As for your second question, everyone is entitled to justice. The entity to provide justice OUGHT to be the judicial branch of government. However, first what is needed is just laws to guide everyone in their actions, and to guide judges in deciding who is right and who is wrong in a given dispute. I contend that the existence of legalized theft and legalized coercion via the regulatory arm turn the whole mechanism of justice upside down. The standard by which to judge has to be put right.

As it stands today, EVERY government behaves in a criminal manner. EVERY government has taken for itself the right to use coercion, in the form of taxation and in the form of regulations governing just about every single aspect of our lives.

As regards the issue of trade embargoes, I maintain it is not an action to be taken by "government." It is an action to be taken by indviduals.

As regards whether the US or Canada or any other nation ought to invade - it should be a matter that is driven by voluntary individual contributions to such a cause. It may be a matter of principle but it is also a matter of economics, of costs involved, and of the issue being understood and backed by individuals. The government should not be permitted to commit theft to finance anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't ignore your definition - I responded to you in the last post of page 1. I think we are closer than not to 100% slavery. I agreed with you that we do not have 100% slave conditions ... yet. However, even in America I do think it's only a matter of time.

Here's what you wrote in that post:

Let's see... definition of slavery. "Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others."

The "forced labor" part remains unrealized ...

That's not the only part that remains unrealized, in America people also aren't considered or treated as the property of others. And your definition(or any other definition) of slavery doesn't contain percentages, so saying that someone is 10% or 75% slave is meaningless hyperbole.

In fact Americans are about as far from your definition (or mine) of slavery, as a dead guy or the Moon. You should stop ignoring your own definition and calling Americans slaves.

As for your second question, everyone is entitled to justice. The entity to provide justice OUGHT to be the judicial branch of government. However, first what is needed is just laws to guide everyone in their actions, and to guide judges in deciding who is right and who is wrong in a given dispute. I contend that the existence of legalized theft and legalized coercion via the regulatory arm turn the whole mechanism of justice upside down. The standard by which to judge has to be put right.

Put right by whom? The American government is elected by the American people, and the members of its third branch are appointed by Americans' representatives or elected directly.

I asked you who is entitled to justice, and by whom, in present day America, not in an America in which "the standard by which to judge" has been miraculously put right.

Should current day American judges pass judgment, by the standards put in place by the representatives of the American people, or should they resign and let justice go not served?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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