Laissez-Faire in the Global Marketplace?

[theestevearnold]

Okay, I won't use the word system either. I'm new here and I don't wanna be misunderstood. I just want some help figuring out, without ever violating an Objectivist principle, what a govt, in its proper role, would have to do to protect the businessmen of an LFC nation/country/island/gulch/etc. when those business men entered into import/export business with nation's that deliberately try to manipulate the global market. Don't you see how the LFC market, would be indirectly controlled, by govts. Just not their own. I think it'd be wise to think about how to prevent it, otherwise the Noblest of Titles, Laissez-Faire Capitalist Country, would lose its right to call themselves Laissez-Faire. Or maybe by definition not. But you get my point: the natural justice (and destruction) of laissez-faire would become tainted by trading with non-LFC nations, unless there's a solution. Maybe there isn't. I'm not giving up. Nobody's gonna wanna dump foreign tea in the harbor if it's half the price of Gulch tea.

[Repairman]

The World Trade Organization is established, in part, for the purpose of lowering trade barriers. I would encourage anyone to learn more about the WTO, and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. There is a great body of history behind global trade, from the Silk Road, to Columbus, to the low point of global trade that prefaced World War 2. While the WTO is a bit mysterious, it is a forum for trading nations allowing them to negotiate, which is certainly one of the primary solutions to anti-capitalist sentiments endemic to all national governments. It must be frustrating, perhaps even dangerous, for a national leader to tell a part of his constituents that they have been screwed as a result of a treaty with a foreign power. Torches and pitchforks come out in full force, when the folks at home find out that new trade quotas have put them out of their lively-hood. It is always more comfortable for the leader to tell his people, "We will NOT allow foreign imports to threaten our jobs!," while charging higher prices for the domestic product(s), and very likely, laying off the people later, under the next regime. (Let the next chump take the blame.) Explaining this to my union brothers never goes over well. Nonetheless, it is vital that the basics of classic economics is understood by as many rational people as possible.

[theestevearnold]

I guess by now it's clear there's two possible positions for this topic:

1. theestevernold, your premise is flawed, no additional LFC nation protections need be enacted for import/exports in a global market; something similar to the rights protections established by America's Founders will suffice (and we won't add statist junk like eminent domain, of course).

2. theestevearnold, I think it would be wise to consider ways that the people of an LFC nation, and/or its government, while remaining in its proper role, i.e. not violating Objectivist principles, can protect the natural flow of its economy when its businessmen import/export with economic-mainipulating nations.

and a) I don't have any ideas yet.

or I have an idea: [insert idea]

[theestevearnold]

I guess by now it's clear there's two possible positions for this topic:

1. theestevernold, your premise is flawed, no additional LFC nation protections need be enacted for import/exports in a global market; something similar to the rights protections established by America's Founders will suffice (and we won't add statist junk like eminent domain, of course).

2. theestevearnold, I think it would be wise to consider ways that the people of an LFC nation, and/or its government, while remaining in its proper role, i.e. not violating Objectivist principles, can protect the natural flow of its economy when its businessmen import/export with economic-mainipulating nations.

and a) I don't have any ideas yet.

or I have an idea: [insert idea]

[theestevearnold]

Or position #3. theestevearnold, the question is irreleveant; LFC can't exist if it import/exports with economic-manipulating nations.

Edited December 21, 2013 by theestevearnold

[Nicky]

Nicky, I never implied that a LFC govt would be justified initiating force on its citizens. Here's an example of international trade distorted an LFC's existence. But first let me say, as you know, LFC is partly defined as no govt intervention into the economy, which allows the natural flow of capitalism to work. Example: Jack, man in an LFC nation, has his intellectual property rights protected for a device he made that takes music and turns it into graphic images that coincide with the emotional responses the person holding the device receives while hearing the music. Millions of people in the LFC wanna buy one. This inventor would've been rich, but a man from Red China stood in line for days just to buy one on the day they went on sale in the LFC nation (for only a hundred bucks.) The commie flew back to China, reverse engineered it, and on the second day everybody from then on bought the exact same thing ( but the Chinese version) for only 20 bucks, in that same LFC nation's store, and all the stores in the LFC nation. The LFC govt knows, as we do, that it'd be wrong to impose a 200$ tariff on the currency-manipulated, imported Chinese version of the device, because of course it's wrong for the LFC govt to intervene in its economy. Jack's life work would've received it's just rewards by the justice of the LFC marketplace, if it wasn't for international trade (which I believe is necessary), so instead of the natural justice of LFC, LFC received a market distortion, a tainting, a skewing, an injustice, because other govts don't honor property rights. Dream weaver said the LFC nation would risk policing the world, and he's so fricken right, it's a dilemma that seems almost unsolvable without policing the world, which I'm certain none of us want. It's mainly an issue of (distortions/tainting, etc.) injustice entering in to the only truly just economic/political system ever devised: LFC. Simply keeping govt out of the market isn't enough. That'd seem libertarian. We're a philosophy, you, I, all of us. Not just a small govt party. LFC would've naturally given Jack his just rewards. That's why it's great. Yeah? Jack invested years of his life and all his money and ended up, not as the rich man, as he should've been, had LFC gone un distorted, but a broke man, because his nation traded with a bunch of unjust commies (with good prices$$$). It's not his neighbors job to pay Jack $100 for a $20 device, as you'd agree. So how does the LFC govt protect future inventors from the same thing happening, without intervening in the import/export business? Justice. I wanna protect the virtue of justice in my hypothetical LFC nation, not just keep govt out of the way. And yeah, it'd be cool if we could do it without policing the world.

That "distortion" doesn't even exist in today's mixed economies (at least not in any in the top 25 on the Heritage Economic Freedom Index). Any product that contains patented technology is just banned. As it would be in LFC.

Makes no difference whatsoever where it's made, it can't be sold in a country which enforces IP laws.

[theestevearnold]

So if I'm not mistaken, since we're talking about a hypothetical LFC nation, do I you think it would be appropriate to have the government ban reverse engineered imports and similar things? I know mixed-economies ban certain imports but we're talking LFC here, and I think government bans would violate our principles. I'm not implying you support bans on imports. And I appreciate you noting how mixed-economies deal with that type of evil.  

[dream_weaver]

theestevearnold,

 

The U.S. had about 1/3 of the people for independence, 1/3 against, and the other 1/3 content to let the other 2/3's determine the ultimate outcome.

 

Ask yourself how close to a 1/3 of the population are having the conversation about the best government principles to ensure a LFC economy. The public indoctrination centers are churning out rationalistic-skeptics faster than the few that manange to slip through their labarinth of cracks and discover the potential that an inductive approach to understanding can bring about. Do you think the LFC is required to bring about a private education system, or is a private eductation system necessary to bring about the LFC mindset?

[Repairman]

I am in full agreement with any statement regarding educational reforms, especially those leading to the elimination of public education as it exist in present-day USA. The LFC nation, that is, the functional nation of rational people committed to free-market principles would not fear currency-manipulators, import-dumping, or slave-labor nations, (assuming LFC has impregnable defenses.)

One concern that LFC might face is an ignorant and irrational immigrant population. I am by no means hostile toward entrepreneurial or professional immigrants, or even low-skilled laborers with the proper orientation and attitude necessary for a demanding and competitive economy. As long as every individual within a set national border understands their own responsibility for their own sake, immigration would not be a problem.

Prevention of popular action through government, in favor of principled action, would be one of the fundamental goals of the LFC. The United States Constitution was supposed to do exactly that: limit the power of government on a federal level. However, the reality of history, or the reality of those times, demanded the new government to impose many of the same neo-merchantile trade restrictions as its trading partners. From this, the US economy was "tainted," and preserved as the majority wished it to be preserved. The steps toward greater free-trade are being taken, but the activity within the US borders are going in the opposite direction.

It is a noteworthy irony that one of the questions presented to immigrant to the US asks what America's economic system is called: Capitalism. I wonder why most native-born citizens couldn't explain the difference between capitalism and communism. My answer: public schools.

[Repairman]

 Do you think the LFC is required to bring about a private education system, or is a private eductation system necessary to bring about the LFC mindset?

 

A splendid rhetorical question. Indeed, if the LFC is to be sustainable, it would require its citizens to learn the processes and principles, the pros and cons of capitalism, although it would not be a compulsory education, (obviously, or it would not be laissez-faire society.) To establish such a society, the members, and their children, would need to have private schools unlike any I have any knowledge of. Objectivism would be my choice of requirements in a school for any of my children, while for others, let them choose. But it is the society that forms the nation, not the nation that forms the society.

Back to the original question of foreign trade, all of the same principles of classic economics apply. A truly free nation could trade freely, and international treaties could address the problem of copyright infringement, or theft. Could we have this nation? Probably not in our lifetime. As Dreamweaver pointed out, education is critical.

I think I would add that, in my opinion, the eligible voters of this society have some requirements, as we in the USA have. But my requirements would be more strict, such as having enough literary skills to read and understand some rudimentary transcript of law and history, in the national language. If the basic problem of ignorance is diminished, other problems become so much easier.  As it is right now, the United States is so dependent on transfer programs for upper, lower, and middle classes that repealing any of these laws would result in almost certain political suicide for the party of repeal.

 

Edited December 21, 2013 by Repairman

[Nicky]

So if I'm not mistaken, since we're talking about a hypothetical LFC nation, do I you think it would be appropriate to have the government ban reverse engineered imports and similar things? I know mixed-economies ban certain imports but we're talking LFC here, and I think government bans would violate our principles. I'm not implying you support bans on imports. And I appreciate you noting how mixed-economies deal with that type of evil.

It's not a ban on imports, it's enforcement of patent laws. It's a legitimate action the judicial systems of mixed economies already perform.

[theestevearnold]

Since a ban on products made from stolen intellectual property doesn't violate Objectivist principles (I assume that's what you meant by "legitimate"), then thank you, Nicky, for that solution. And thank you, Repairman, for suggesting that I research other current (legitimate) trade policies, that are working. I've wrongly been hesitant to do use history as my guide because I detest the Pragmatic approach of "if the outcomes are good, principles be damned"; but I've now realized that, as long as a solution doesn't violate my principles, it doesn't matter who created it and which nation(s) applied it. Thanks again everybody. I've got some researching to do now. I hope I didn't offend anybody so much that I can never redeem myself.

[Nicky]

Since a ban on products made from stolen intellectual property doesn't violate Objectivist principles (I assume that's what you meant by "legitimate"), then thank you, Nicky, for that solution.

Don't thank me, thank the Venetian Senate. They're the ones who passed the first patent law in 1474, thus solving this problem.