In an Objectivist state would local corporations be barred from trading with an “enemy”, e.g. Iran? What would be an argument for such a case?
Personally I think that it shouldn’t be barred. If its an enemy is posing such a direct threat then the state should be going on a military offensive and not just banning corporations from trading. It is like banning a Pizza Store from selling food to a local communist club – indirectly “helping” the enemy.
In an Objectivist state would local corporations be barred from trading with an “enemy”, e.g. Iran?
No. However, any person or company can be rightfully prevented from providing war supplies to a nation that we are at war with.
I’m not sure how current diplomatic relations work: whether war and peace are the only two possibilities between two countries, or if others are gradations are recognized. For instance, I’ve often wondered if it might make sense to legally formalize an intermediate state, of not being at peace, while not actively at war. It would amount to declaring a nation to be potentially hostile, but not hostile enough to warrant an attack. I suppose that one could call this state, and the other actions or restrictions that go with it, as being a form of war; but, I think it is qualitatively different. Just a thought.
Either way, I reach the same conclusion as David: it’s fine to have restrictions for the right (i.e., military defense of true rights) reasons.
War supplies being? food? or weapons?
And when you say at “war” do you mean actually engaged in combat, or “war” like we have with Iran and America now?
War supplies being? food? or weapons?
It should be broad, I think. Not gas centrifuges; metal lathes; medical supplies; guns; high-grade steel; sarin gas or its components. Cabbage-patch kids and Pet Rocks would be okay, also Etch-a-Sketch, playing cards, Enya CDs.
And when you say at “war” do you mean actually engaged in combat, or “war” like we have with Iran and America now?
War means war, not political struggle. When we get the balls to actually declare war on an aggressor nation and mean it, and state unequivocally that our policy is to kill the enemy until they surrender, then we should, as I say, mean it. I don’t mean the war we have with Canada, France or Russia. Or Iran – the word “war” should mean something, and we are not at war with Iran, today.
Generally, in war, you want to impose a blockade on the enemy, not a de-facto embargo on yourself. I can see keeping militarily useful things out of enemy hands, however.