Political Crossfire Forums

[LeopardPM]

Sorry, just read a great article that brings the point home regarding why we should have Free Trade (total and complete government non-interference with the market) with everyone.

Here is a snippet:

"With the 2006 election, America appears to have reached the tipping point on free trade. . . . Anxiety, and fear of jobs lost to India and China, seems a more powerful emotion than gratitude for the inexpensive goods at Wal-Mart. The bribe Corporate America has offered Working America -- a cornucopia of consumer goods in return for surrendering U.S. sovereignty, economic security and industrial primacy -- is being rejected."


Link to article in question:
The Goal Is Freedom: Economic Nationalism, Enemy of the People

[Brooklyn]

What else should we expect? Many of the democrats who won seats were in areas with struggling economies. The old rust belt that used to be king when it came to manufacturing. I agree with the people just don't see the benefits of free trade.

Quote: China and India have their own fears. They have to watch out for competition from cheap labor in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka.

Now, our trade situation with China has to change. Artificially keeping the Yuan locked with the Dollar isn't natural and certainly does not represent "free trade". Allowing the Yuan to float would force some of the manufacturing to the above developing nations. That wouldn't really help change public opinion though.

[chris_mthomas]

Quote: Now, our trade situation with China has to change. Artificially keeping the Yuan locked with the Dollar isn't natural and certainly does not represent "free trade".
I disagree. While in the end China would be better off if it floated its currency, who are we to complain if they offer us bargain goods in the name of some export-driven growth?

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Sorry, just read a great article that brings the point home regarding why we should have Free Trade (total and complete government non-interference with the market) with everyone.

I'm generally very much in favor of free trade, but do you honestly believe private US firms should be allowed to make nuclear weapons and sell them to enemy foreign governments and terrorist groups?

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Sorry, just read a great article that brings the point home regarding why we should have Free Trade (total and complete government non-interference with the market) with everyone.

I'm generally very much in favor of free trade, but do you honestly believe private US firms should be allowed to make nuclear weapons and sell them to enemy foreign governments and terrorist groups?

you bring that up just as an appeal to emotion... ultimately, yes, but on the grounds that this ONE sticking point (WMD's in general) which is in high emotional focus at this point in history, I would accept government 'regulation' of WMD's if it would refrain from all other restrictions. I don't believe it is necessary, that the market would develop preventions and put in place better methods, but since the market hasn't been allowed to work in this area very much and considering the possible grand effects, there is no way to convince others of a 'completely' free market at this time.

Now, given that I would conceed this point at that level - lets take a look at the current world state of affairs, I submit the following facts:
(1) governments are in anarchy with each other, there is no 'world authority'.
(2) a coalition of governments have agreed to a nuclear proliferation treaty designed to prevent the spread of nuclear technology.
(3) despite the aims of this coalition, the number of nuclear capable states has increased from the initial 2 (US and Russia) to over 19 (I think) in 50 years.
Given this track record, do you really think that nuclear weapons will be kept from any foreign government OR terrorist group, ultimately? I think that it is a losing battle and the best thing to be doing right now is building up relationships instead of increasing the reasons for other folks (governments) to dislike the US government. Of course, if there were no 'US Gov' in the form it is today, there really wouldn't be a problem, would there?

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Sorry, just read a great article that brings the point home regarding why we should have Free Trade (total and complete government non-interference with the market) with everyone.

I'm generally very much in favor of free trade, but do you honestly believe private US firms should be allowed to make nuclear weapons and sell them to enemy foreign governments and terrorist groups?

you bring that up just as an appeal to emotion... ultimately, yes, but on the grounds that this ONE sticking point (WMD's in general) which is in high emotional focus at this point in history, I would accept government 'regulation' of WMD's if it would refrain from all other restrictions. I don't believe it is necessary, that the market would develop preventions and put in place better methods, but since the market hasn't been allowed to work in this area very much and considering the possible grand effects, there is no way to convince others of a 'completely' free market at this time.

Now, given that I would conceed this point at that level - lets take a look at the current world state of affairs, I submit the following facts:
(1) governments are in anarchy with each other, there is no 'world authority'.
(2) a coalition of governments have agreed to a nuclear proliferation treaty designed to prevent the spread of nuclear technology.
(3) despite the aims of this coalition, the number of nuclear capable states has increased from the initial 2 (US and Russia) to over 19 (I think) in 50 years.
Given this track record, do you really think that nuclear weapons will be kept from any foreign government OR terrorist group, ultimately? I think that it is a losing battle and the best thing to be doing right now is building up relationships instead of increasing the reasons for other folks (governments) to dislike the US government. Of course, if there were no 'US Gov' in the form it is today, there really wouldn't be a problem, would there?

Put nuclear weapons aside for the moment. Should US companies be allowed to sell any advanced military technology to nations that are our sworn enemies?

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote:
Put nuclear weapons aside for the moment. Should US companies be allowed to sell any advanced military technology to nations that are our sworn enemies?

again, here is a problem that our government has created that makes it particularly hard for the market to correct for.

Look, I have very few, if any, 'sworn enemies' - and there are no nations among them. If our government would mind its own business in regards to foreign affairs for a few decades, or perhaps a generation, then I would say, "Yes!" to your question. At this current point in time, it is obviously silly to give a weapon to someone who happens to be very pissed at you (or pissed at the government of the country you reside) for the moment!

Would you have a problem with folks selling the same technology to Switzerland, or perhaps England or other 'Nato' nations?

Our lovely government provided money and arms to the Taliban, Iraq, and Iran. What can we do, as citizens, to prevent or 'punish' for doing such things? Basically, nothing. When a private company engages in the sale to 'questionable' entities, they can be boycotted and otherwise run out of business. It seems to me the market process might be more effective at satisfying your fears than the current government entity.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Put nuclear weapons aside for the moment. Should US companies be allowed to sell any advanced military technology to nations that are our sworn enemies?

again, here is a problem that our government has created that makes it particularly hard for the market to correct for.

Look, I have very few, if any, 'sworn enemies' - and there are no nations among them. If our government would mind its own business in regards to foreign affairs for a few decades, or perhaps a generation, then I would say, "Yes!" to your question. At this current point in time, it is obviously silly to give a weapon to someone who happens to be very pissed at you (or pissed at the government of the country you reside) for the moment!

Would you have a problem with folks selling the same technology to Switzerland, or perhaps England or other 'Nato' nations?

Our lovely government provided money and arms to the Taliban, Iraq, and Iran. What can we do, as citizens, to prevent or 'punish' for doing such things? Basically, nothing. When a private company engages in the sale to 'questionable' entities, they can be boycotted and otherwise run out of business. It seems to me the market process might be more effective at satisfying your fears than the current government entity.

That sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. I have no doubt that our government creates a lot of its own problems through its foreign policy, but the idea that we'd have no enemies if our government just minded its own business is naive.

During the rise of communism post-WWII, you'd have no problem whatsoever if the US defense industry started selling weaponry en masse to the USSR? That's scary.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: Put nuclear weapons aside for the moment. Should US companies be allowed to sell any advanced military technology to nations that are our sworn enemies?

Absolutely not. I don't care what the economic implications are.

[Brooklyn]

Quote: I disagree. While in the end China would be better off if it floated its currency, who are we to complain if they offer us bargain goods in the name of some export-driven growth?

We would still get bargain basement prices on goods. The goods would come from other developing nations such as the ones the author listed in the article.

[veritas lux mea]

Trading with the Enemy is a long standing American tradition, hehe.

I would consider the problem of enemies of the United States acquiring so called 'WMDs' and attacking us a problem. But prohibiting free trade on account of it seems to be to be striking at the branches of evil, as opposed to the root (to use Thoreau's metaphor). The root of the problem is not the fact that companies would be allowed to trade with our 'enemies'; rather, it is the fact that the United States Federal Government has an unfortunate habit of interloping, often violently, in the affairs of other nations and peoples across the globe. Without this, we would have much fewer enemies seeking to attack us from afar.

[RueTheDay]

veritas lux mea wrote: Trading with the Enemy is a long standing American tradition, hehe.

I would consider the problem of enemies of the United States acquiring so called 'WMDs' and attacking us a problem. But prohibiting free trade on account of it seems to be to be striking at the branches of evil, as opposed to the root (to use Thoreau's metaphor). The root of the problem is not the fact that companies would be allowed to trade with our 'enemies'; rather, it is the fact that the United States Federal Government has an unfortunate habit of interloping, often violently, in the affairs of other nations and peoples across the globe. Without this, we would have much fewer enemies seeking to attack us from afar.

Fewer? Perhaps. But we would still have enemies, and it's absurd to suggest that selling advanced military technology to them under the pretense of free trade should be permitted.

[veritas lux mea]

RueTheDay wrote: veritas lux mea wrote: Trading with the Enemy is a long standing American tradition, hehe.

I would consider the problem of enemies of the United States acquiring so called 'WMDs' and attacking us a problem. But prohibiting free trade on account of it seems to be to be striking at the branches of evil, as opposed to the root (to use Thoreau's metaphor). The root of the problem is not the fact that companies would be allowed to trade with our 'enemies'; rather, it is the fact that the United States Federal Government has an unfortunate habit of interloping, often violently, in the affairs of other nations and peoples across the globe. Without this, we would have much fewer enemies seeking to attack us from afar.

Fewer? Perhaps. But we would still have enemies, and it's absurd to suggest that selling advanced military technology to them under the pretense of free trade should be permitted.

There are ways to deal with the few enemies a just society (i.e. a society not constantly screwing with other peoples) would have, and these need not be coercive, as a restriction of trade would be. This is similar to the problem of gun control. The evil doers are going to get their weapons one way or another; and those who wish to sell weapons are going to sell them to whoever they wish, because these people are already predisposed to lawbreaking.

This is a problem best dealt with by security measures by property owners. And given your quote I suppose you're familiar with LvM; thus you surely have some respect for the efficacy of free trade, and for the fact that even such regulations as this would lead to others by setting a dangerous precedent. That is: that we should restrict trade because if might simply pose a danger to some people given what certain other people might do, but haven't actually done already.

[RueTheDay]

veritas lux mea wrote: RueTheDay wrote: veritas lux mea wrote: Trading with the Enemy is a long standing American tradition, hehe.

I would consider the problem of enemies of the United States acquiring so called 'WMDs' and attacking us a problem. But prohibiting free trade on account of it seems to be to be striking at the branches of evil, as opposed to the root (to use Thoreau's metaphor). The root of the problem is not the fact that companies would be allowed to trade with our 'enemies'; rather, it is the fact that the United States Federal Government has an unfortunate habit of interloping, often violently, in the affairs of other nations and peoples across the globe. Without this, we would have much fewer enemies seeking to attack us from afar.

Fewer? Perhaps. But we would still have enemies, and it's absurd to suggest that selling advanced military technology to them under the pretense of free trade should be permitted.

There are ways to deal with the few enemies a just society (i.e. a society not constantly screwing with other peoples) would have, and these need not be coercive, as a restriction of trade would be. This is similar to the problem of gun control. The evil doers are going to get their weapons one way or another; and those who wish to sell weapons are going to sell them to whoever they wish, because these people are already predisposed to lawbreaking.

This is a problem best dealt with by security measures by property owners. And given your quote I suppose you're familiar with LvM; thus you surely have some respect for the efficacy of free trade, and for the fact that even such regulations as this would lead to others by setting a dangerous precedent. That is: that we should restrict trade because if might simply pose a danger to some people given what certain other people might do, but haven't actually done already.

I'm also well aware of the fact that "markets" would not exist without the enforcement of property rights and contracts and that government is absolutely required for such things, contrary to the claims of lunatics like Rothbard.

[veritas lux mea]

RueTheDay wrote: veritas lux mea wrote: RueTheDay wrote: veritas lux mea wrote: Trading with the Enemy is a long standing American tradition, hehe.

I would consider the problem of enemies of the United States acquiring so called 'WMDs' and attacking us a problem. But prohibiting free trade on account of it seems to be to be striking at the branches of evil, as opposed to the root (to use Thoreau's metaphor). The root of the problem is not the fact that companies would be allowed to trade with our 'enemies'; rather, it is the fact that the United States Federal Government has an unfortunate habit of interloping, often violently, in the affairs of other nations and peoples across the globe. Without this, we would have much fewer enemies seeking to attack us from afar.

Fewer? Perhaps. But we would still have enemies, and it's absurd to suggest that selling advanced military technology to them under the pretense of free trade should be permitted.

There are ways to deal with the few enemies a just society (i.e. a society not constantly screwing with other peoples) would have, and these need not be coercive, as a restriction of trade would be. This is similar to the problem of gun control. The evil doers are going to get their weapons one way or another; and those who wish to sell weapons are going to sell them to whoever they wish, because these people are already predisposed to lawbreaking.

This is a problem best dealt with by security measures by property owners. And given your quote I suppose you're familiar with LvM; thus you surely have some respect for the efficacy of free trade, and for the fact that even such regulations as this would lead to others by setting a dangerous precedent. That is: that we should restrict trade because if might simply pose a danger to some people given what certain other people might do, but haven't actually done already.

I'm also well aware of the fact that "markets" would not exist without the enforcement of property rights and contracts and that government is absolutely required for such things, contrary to the claims of lunatics like Rothbard.

By questioning state restrictions on free trade I am not questioning state restrictions on aggressive coercion, i.e. on the enforcement of contracts and property rights. I'll save that lunacy for another thread. :-D