Economic Boycotts

[Myself]

In her 1964 Playboy interview Miss Rand stated:

I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.

By "economic boycotts" is she referring to a government enforced moratorium, or a voluntary one? Should a business sacrifice its market in a country in order to help the decline of an "outlaw" nation? Is a government enforced boycott moral?

[Dargormudshark]

She probably meant voluntary action, since Rand was an advocate of the government not being involved with economics. A man should be able to deal with whoever he wants to, just as long as it's not at the expense of others, a moratorium of economic boycott would be immoral. If I want to buy a product from China or Cuba that's my decision, as an individual, and as long as its not at the expense of anyone else.

Although after I read the statement you brought up I was leaning torwards not buying too much from China, but then I was watching the news and they had an editorial on the boom of Private Industry in China. I havn't researched it too much so I can't dwell into the details too much, but after I find some stuff out I will post it, if that topic has not been brought up yet.

[Strangelove]

If I want to buy a product from China or Cuba that's my decision, as an individual, and as long as its not at the expense of anyone else.

If you buy a Chinese product, that cash goes back to China which gets taxed, sent to Beijing, and used to purchase new military equipment. These days it would probably go into their Navy since that is what they need to counter the US blue water navy and take Taiwan. Or it might just go into their larger modernization program which is being directed at their air force and army as well.

Reinforcing the current regime in Beijing is not in anyone's interest.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Strangelove

[FeatherFall]

I don't think it can be said exactly what she meant without further quotes from her. A forced boycott of a country can be a legitimate use of government power - it is simply a less extreme version of a blockade. The government bars only it's own citizens from trade with the enemy - other nations are left to do business as they see fit.

[Myself]

I don't think it can be said exactly what she meant without further quotes from her. A forced boycott of a country can be a legitimate use of government power - it is simply a less extreme version of a blockade. The government bars only it's own citizens from trade with the enemy - other nations are left to do business as they see fit.

How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading? Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force. If a country is fighting an enemy it must be done with physical force or voluntary economic pressure. To do otherwise would require the intiation of force against its own citizens which is immoral.

[Drew1776]

If I want to buy a product from China or Cuba that's my decision, as an individual, and as long as its not at the expense of anyone else.

I disagree. The government has the right to stop an individual from aiding the countries’ enemies just as it has the right to punish me if I harbor a murderer. I agree that the government has no business being involved in economics and should not restrict trade with other countries unless that country happens to be an enemy. By enemy country I mean a country that we are openly at war with, sponsors terrorists, or who enslaves it's own people.

It is morally reprehensible and illegal for me to knowingly conduct business with a slave owner or murderer. I think that the same would hold true of other governments and countries. I think the government would be justified in making those calls on such a large scale. Take for example war. Would you have supported the right of an American to do business with Nazi Germany or Japan? I hope not because the security of the countrty and indeed yourself demands that you not support those who wish to destroy you.

[Lathanar]

How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading? Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force. If a country is fighting an enemy it must be done with physical force or voluntary economic pressure. To do otherwise would require the intiation of force against its own citizens which is immoral.

Should an American arms dealer running a legal trade business be allowed to supply arms to al-Qaida?

[Myself]

If you buy a Chinese product, that cash goes back to China which gets taxed, sent to Beijing, and used to purchase new military equipment. These days it would probably go into their Navy since that is what they need to counter the US blue water navy and take Taiwan. Or it might just go into their larger modernization program which is being directed at their air force and army as well.

Reinforcing the current regime in Beijing is not in anyone's interest.

Look around your house and see how many stickers say: "made in china." I don't think it can be stopped at this point - Chinese products in general have too much of a foothold in our economy. Should every American that owns a Chinese product be indirectly responsible for the deaths of Chinese citizens?

Should an American arms dealer running a legal trade business be allowed to supply arms to al-Qaida?

No that would be directly arming known terrorists. But would it be moral to buy (let's say) Afghani bread if the Taliban (the headquarters of named group) is in power? Where does culpability begin? Does aiding any immorality make you immoral? Does cooperating with the US government to support its welfare state and pay taxes make you a criminal? What if that tax money gets poured into N. Korea or some other dictatorship?

Edited June 29, 2006 by Myself

[JMeganSnow]

At present, the communist regime in China is showing signs of disintegration (its desperate, unsuccessful attempts to censor the internet and the fact that it's being increasingly forced to allow free enterprise and political dissent to go unpunished), in which case it may actually be moral to open up trade with China, however I think we should still draw the line at selling them weapons or weapons technology. When you move from a general principle (the government can enforce economic sanctions against hostile countries) to a specific case the situation can become complicated if the hostile country is part-free, part-dictatorship.

[Dargormudshark]

If you buy a Chinese product, that cash goes back to China which gets taxed, sent to Beijing, and used to purchase new military equipment. These days it would probably go into their Navy since that is what they need to counter the US blue water navy and take Taiwan. Or it might just go into their larger modernization program which is being directed at their air force and army as well.

Like I said, I really don't know how the money is distirbuted in those countires, that is why I tacked on the, "as long as it's not at the expense of others". Obviously if this is 100% true, which i'll do the research myself, but I don't believe to what you say completely unlikey.

Would you have supported the right of an American to do business with Nazi Germany or Japan? I hope not because the security of the countrty and indeed yourself demands that you not support those who wish to destroy you.

I agree that the only time the government should be allowed to restrict trade is when the country in question is an enemy and trading with them would be a threat.

At present, the communist regime in China is showing signs of disintegration (its desperate, unsuccessful attempts to censor the internet and the fact that it's being increasingly forced to allow free enterprise and political dissent to go unpunished), in which case it may actually be moral to open up trade with China, however I think we should still draw the line at selling them weapons or weapons technology. When you move from a general principle (the government can enforce economic sanctions against hostile countries) to a specific case the situation can become complicated if the hostile country is part-free, part-dictatorship.

This is why my opinion on whether or not to buy products from China changed. It's good to know that what they said on the news was true, which was that the private industry in China is booming rapidly.

reason for edit: grammar fix

Edited June 29, 2006 by Dargormudshark

[FeatherFall]

How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading? Economic power is not a legitimate branch of the government's monopoly on the use of force. If a country is fighting an enemy it must be done with physical force or voluntary economic pressure. To do otherwise would require the intiation of force against its own citizens which is immoral.

Some have already addressed this, but I want to zero in on the relationship between blockades and forced boycotts.

A blockade is a use of the military to prevent an enemy nation from trading. This has diplomatic effects that go beyond the borders of two nations and effect diplomacy with other allies and neutral parties.

A forced boycott is, in principle, the same. The boycott, however, is less extreme and might be used instead of the blockade for a few reasons - The government doesn't want to risk armed conflict, or they don't want to anger neutral parties or their own allies are two examples.

Both are barriers to trade. If one nation is threatening the other, it is perfectly fine to for that second nation to take whatever means necessary to defeat its opponent. This includes economic sanctions of any variety.

Edited June 29, 2006 by FeatherFall

[Lathanar]

No that would be directly arming known terrorists.

Then you've answered your own question of "How can a government legitimately bar its own citizens from trading?"