Free-Trade League = Isolationism = Good

[ZSorenson]

What if the US entered into an agreement with other countries that basically said that there would be absolute unregulated free-trade and immigration between them. Each country can make whatever laws it wants, but has to accept those two rules. There would also be a basic bill of rights (civil rights like due process, free speech, something basic about property), that each country had to 'fulfill' to be in the league.

This league would operate unilaterally in all its foreign policy decisions. I mean that theoretically. That it recognized no authority in the world beyond its unilateral self-interest. This is similar to a 'league of democracies' that Neo-conproglib something or others talk about. It would act as a hegemony of sorts that only acted to preserve its territories and trade interests.

Significantly, to make this more practical (and avoid 'realism' or foreign resource adventures), its own rules would forbid trade with nations not in the league. It would also have a policy of admitting anyone into the league who met its requirements.

So, the net result is to completely shut-out collectivist nations, and the justification is that individuals in the free nations aren't artificially bound to their national market. That would be to prevent protectionism or mercantalism, while preserving a form of isolationism.

I love cheap Chinese crap, and I love cheap Saudi oil, and for a while cheap chinese money built a lot of big nice real estate up (next to the forclosed houses, how many failing commercial developments are there?). But I don't think I properly earned any of those through a fair trade.

What do you think? Unlimited free trade with qualifying 'free nations' and a permanent embargo against all others?

[Jake_Ellison]

I love cheap Chinese crap, and I love cheap Saudi oil, and for a while cheap chinese money built a lot of big nice real estate up (next to the forclosed houses, how many failing commercial developments are there?). But I don't think I properly earned any of those through a fair trade.

If you truly believe that, you should stop buying those products. But don't expect me to want to do the same, I have no hangups about trading with Chinese people, or the Saudis.

What do you think? Unlimited free trade with qualifying 'free nations' and a permanent embargo against all others?

I reserve the right to trade with any person on the Planet, as long as that trade is not objectively proven to constitute the violation of someone's rights. That is the only acceptable standard for any restriction a government may impose on its citizens, none other. Trading with someone who's government doesn't agree with your conditions is not necessarily a violation of rights, so an embargo on such nations would violate my rights. I guess at that point the US should embargo itself.

I would of course support the idea without the embargo, just the free trade league. Unfortunately I doubt there would be any takers for this league (except maybe Switzerland, though they're pretty shy about getting into any "leagues", so it might just have to be a free trade agreement, with no conditions whatsoever, and a US commitment toward ending the harassment of their banks). I'm afraid NAFTA, the WTO, and the other bilateral trade agreements are the best one can expect out of most countries, even if the US miraculously became free trade oriented in the near future. (which can't happen anyway).

Edited March 10, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[ZSorenson]

If you truly believe that, you should stop buying those products. But don't expect me to want to do the same, I have no hangups about trading with Chinese people, or the Saudis.

I reserve the right to trade with any person on the Planet, as long as that trade is not objectively proven to constitute the violation of someone's rights. That is the only acceptable standard for any restriction a government may impose on its citizens, none other. Trading with someone who's government doesn't agree with your conditions is not necessarily a violation of rights, so an embargo on such nations would violate my rights. I guess at that point the US should embargo itself.

I would of course support the idea without the embargo, just the free trade league. Unfortunately I doubt there would be any takers for this league (except maybe Switzerland, though they're pretty shy about getting into any "leagues", so it might just have to be a free trade agreement, with no conditions whatsoever, and a US commitment toward ending the harassment of their banks). I'm afraid NAFTA, the WTO, and the other bilateral trade agreements are the best one can expect out of most countries, even if the US miraculously became free trade oriented in the near future. (which can't happen anyway).

Statecraft is not an irrelevant idea, though. Individuals do not fight empires, other empires do. Access to markets is what enriches polities that otherwise couldn't be wealthy because of their collectivist policies. In addition, only governments secure rights. Individuals can respect the rights of those with whom they immediately trade, but only government can preserve the rights people more broadly than that.

If there were slaves, say providing for %30 of the sugar market, then you could argue that that slave labor - whether you buy from those who employ it directly or not - benefits you via a lower price due to greater supply. Your trading choices can't directly preserve rights, and you can't necessarily just invade a country that territorially falls under your government's control. You embargo slavery. You embargo apartheid. You should have embargoed soviet communism - in which society there was no conceivable way you could claim you were making a fair trade (legal).

You are right about the US, and most of Europe is mixed enough economically, that no trade is possible without some connection to collectivized something or other, despite what private trade is legal in the nation. That's why I say if there are basic civil rights, and freedom of emigration, you don't have to draw a line. In the worst case scenario, people who suffer under the collective move, and those who choose not to move always reserve the right to speak out and vote to change the situation. So even if you trade with a collectivist nation, you can essentially conclude that 'that's what they want'. Not so for an authoritarian government.

I'm sorry, but we should not be trading with China - there's all the rest of Asia with poor desperate overpopulation to work for cheap wages - and most of them are more or less liberalized economies, or could with subtle diplomatic pressure, become more so (I'm ignoring SE Asia of course). China is a sworn geopolitical and military adversary. They have a vested interest in trade, but only inasmuch as it is strategic for them. We're only enriching them to the point where they'll get enough good technology and infrastructure to go for broke against us. And nearly the whole country are slaves, holding no real rights over their property, and often conscripted into labor.

I could choose to not buy things from China, but nearly most everything is manufactured there (there are perhaps a few cases where the choice is easier), or is affected beneficially for me because of things that other people buy from China. Government protects rights, and I don't want to trade in a market that depends on others' rights being severely and blatantly violated. The government can't set rules for the market, but it can act against explicit rights' violations. It's not in ours or anyone's remotest interest to go on an imperial crusade to impose a strict Objectivist government on top of the world. This is why the government should take efforts to severely restrict trade with countries like China. This is also the best way to stay ahead of enemies of rights. By not letting them benefit from the values they hope to destroy.

That's the purpose of the league. It's actually supposed to be a 'do-it-tomorrow' realistic policy ideal. Certainly it would never happen, but I'm thinking from the point of view of what might work best. One idea would be just a general policy of embargo against really unfree countries.

Though, realistically, trade with us is probably the only thing that keeps China from going crazy. They don't want the dollar to collapse, but if we restricted trade, then I'm sure they might start thinking about it.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm sorry, but we should not be trading with China - there's all the rest of Asia with poor desperate overpopulation to work for cheap wages - and most of them are more or less liberalized economies, or could with subtle diplomatic pressure, become more so (I'm ignoring SE Asia of course). China is a sworn geopolitical and military adversary. They have a vested interest in trade, but only inasmuch as it is strategic for them. We're only enriching them to the point where they'll get enough good technology and infrastructure to go for broke against us. And nearly the whole country are slaves, holding no real rights over their property, and often conscripted into labor.

I could choose to not buy things from China, but nearly most everything is manufactured there

You're exaggerating. It's not true that China is a sworn military adversary (since they're not at war with the US), no idea what you mean by "go for broke", nearly the whole country aren't slaves, they do have some rights over property, and it's not true that nearly everything is manufactured there. Sorry, I can't argue with someone who molds facts to fit his ideas to this extent. The bottom line is, Objectivism holds that no one has the right to stop me from trading with someone unless they can prove that the specific thing I'm buying has been obtained by violating someone's rights. Since it isn't true that everything imported from China has been obtained through force, or even that the majority of things imported from there have been obtained that way, an embargo would be an abusive measure.

I could choose to not buy things from China, but nearly most everything is manufactured there (there are perhaps a few cases where the choice is easier), or is affected beneficially for me because of things that other people buy from China.

If you truly believe that it is immoral to trade with China you should you buy nothing made in China. If you believe it is immoral to benefit from lower prices caused by Chinese imports, you should insist on paying extra for every product you do buy, which was made in a country you consider acceptable. Until you do that, asking for the gov. to stop me from trading with China and implicitly force me to do exactly those two things is just blatant hypocrisy.

[ZSorenson]

You're exaggerating. It's not true that China is a sworn military adversary (since they're not at war with the US), no idea what you mean by "go for broke", nearly the whole country aren't slaves, they do have some rights over property, and it's not true that nearly everything is manufactured there. Sorry, I can't argue with someone who molds facts to fit his ideas to this extent. The bottom line is, Objectivism holds that no one has the right to stop me from trading with someone unless they can prove that the specific thing I'm buying has been obtained by violating someone's rights. Since it isn't true that everything imported from China has been obtained through force, or even that the majority of things imported from there have been obtained that way, an embargo would be an abusive measure.

If you truly believe that it is immoral to trade with China you should you buy nothing made in China. If you believe it is immoral to benefit from lower prices caused by Chinese imports, you should insist on paying extra for every product you do buy, which was made in a country you consider acceptable. Until you do that, asking for the gov. to stop me from trading with China and implicitly force me to do exactly those two things is just blatant hypocrisy.

Your point about the factual basis of 'slavery' in China is absolutely valid. I'm not convinced that your facts aren't just as molded in the opposite direction. What I do know of China, all of what you say is true in certain examples. If you remove my premature 'most', I think all of my statements are true in many examples. An investigation/debate about the question of 'most' and how individuals operate amidst politically sovereign government would be interesting and helpful in that regard. I am conceding that as of now I don't have a factual basis for demanding the sort things I have earlier, though, I will not force you to argue with incompetence.

I stand by my general thesis that under certain circumstances - whether we can find those with China or not - an individual cannot trade with an individual freely in defiance of politics. A government has every right to prevent you from trading with people that directly infringe on peoples' rights in producing what they are trading. That's what government is for. Whether that standard can apply to an entire polity and all the individuals under its force monopoly - that is a more nuanced debate, and much of what you have pointed out may be true.

I guess a better 'hypothetical' question that gets to the heart of this philosophical issue is: would you trade with merchants from a society where piracy is common? Maybe the merchant isn't a pirate - say in the South China Sea/Mallorca as of 18XX - but most certainly trade in that society commonly involves pirated goods - and there is no government over the merchant that fights piracy. So, does your market need to have some sort of rights-preserving reciprocracy in order to be moral to trade in. In a semi-anarchic society, there could be generally trusted 'codes of honor' that you and other merchants could abide, but government is a very necessary thing most of the time.

[ex_banana-eater]

Your proposal of restricting who I can trade with would be a violation of my rights. America should unilaterally end tariffs and protectionism against all nations (except those who we are at declared war with) because those laws are a violation of the rights of the citizens. Whether or not a foreign country does not reciprocate by ending trade barriers on their side should have no bearing on our decision to protect individual rights within our own country.

[ex_banana-eater]

If there were slaves, say providing for %30 of the sugar market, then you could argue that that slave labor - whether you buy from those who employ it directly or not - benefits you via a lower price due to greater supply.

Free markets are better than slave states at producing goods in abundance and competitive prices.

[ZSorenson]

Free markets are better than slave states at producing goods in abundance and competitive prices.

Not true, the free market's advantage fails when the slave drivers are sold the technology and skills of the free market.

With traditional slavery, a whole race was assigned permanent slave status. This meant that the maintenance of their slavery trumped economic considerations. 'Keeping the black man down' was more important than competitive trade. Still, some forms of production benefit immensely from cheap brute force labor - justifying the cost of enforcement of the slavery - others do not.

In a 'China', when freeing the labor force is economically more attractive than keeping them in line they can do that. When requiring a population to remain in a village, starve unless they work for the village factory, and shoot them if they try to say anything about it, is cheaper than what you'd have to pay them if they could move or refuse to work - then you'll do that. Not all of China is therefore slaves. But the fact that their political arrangement allows for people to be slaves when it is economically convenient is my concern.

You do have a right to trade with anyone. But slavery is illegal. In our country, our government prevents slavery - not trade. But our government cannot operate, nor should, in other countries. Still, it would be a contradiction for the government to recognize a man's rights only because he is 'in that country' - it's legitimacy does not have any relationship to whom it protects. I speak of legitimacy - the legitimacy to have a monopoly on force and use it in protection of rights - as I speak of the source of those rights which are objective and universal. While the actions of a government are absolutely associated with whom it protects, it cannot choose to recognize only the rights of those people. So a government can say "I only have the responsibility, and right, to prevent slavery here.", but cannot say, "the citizens in that other country have no rights that we recognize."

How do you recognize another's rights while admitting you have no business protecting them? By blocking trade. You can't shoot the slavemasters , but you can tell your citizens that they have no business trading with them. This is because rights are universal and objective - the government cannot recognize your rights without recognizing everyone's. Otherwise, it is only a social contract, and can do whatever it wants to you if the majority so decides.

[Black Wolf]

He's got a point there, slavery tends to do wonders for the economy... for a while. That's why China was doing good right now, and that's why Stalin's Five Year Plan worked.

But the question is: would it be moral to buy products from countries that allow slavery?

[Jake_Ellison]

He's got a point there, slavery tends to do wonders for the economy... for a while. That's why China was doing good right now, and that's why Stalin's Five Year Plan worked.

What's the point you're in agreement with? That there's no evidence necessary before we condemn the Chinese economy as driven by slave labor, we can just pretend it is so?

[ZSorenson]

Some reflection has taught me that my proposal here is meant as an alternative to the current geopolitical regime. We can of course choose to continue to fund a massive global armada and maintain peace through a hegemonic balance of power.

[Prons]

I'm sorry, but we should not be trading with China - there's all the rest of Asia with poor desperate overpopulation to work for cheap wages - and most of them are more or less liberalized economies, or could with subtle diplomatic pressure, become more so (I'm ignoring SE Asia of course). China is a sworn geopolitical and military adversary. They have a vested interest in trade, but only inasmuch as it is strategic for them. We're only enriching them to the point where they'll get enough good technology and infrastructure to go for broke against us. And nearly the whole country are slaves, holding no real rights over their property, and often conscripted into labor.

Isn't that the point of trading to do something strategic for yourself? And wouldn't trade fix the "poor" problem because more people would enter foriegn trade and make more money and then the country would become more industralized and then the over population problem would become less and less of an issue because then the country would have better social and economic infrastructure?

Really when I look at your idea, as stated in the opening post, it seems to be "Let's have free trade by putting limits on trade."

[Jake_Ellison]

Some reflection has taught me that my proposal here is meant as an alternative to the current geopolitical regime. We can of course choose to continue to fund a massive global armada and maintain peace through a hegemonic balance of power.

Your description of US defense policy is more colorful than accurate. Also, you're committing the fallacy of false alternatives. In fact, rejecting your proposal is not a vote for continuing the current policy (the actual one or your "global armada" version)