William Greider

Neither I suppose is murder, rape, arson, larceny, slander, war, or slavery, since those things too have existed in a free society.

The black Death was caused by disease carried by fleas spread by rats with much blame lying with the general ignorance of the population many of which thought that cats were to blame, and so many natural enemies of the rats were killed.

To say it was caused by "free trade" with Asia ignores the interest that empires and states had in trade with Asia.

Rats were as likely to be carried by military ships of the day as by trade ships.

When an individual engages in bargaining, he is doing it with his own resources and knows when the value he desires is available at a price he is willing to pay.

People don't bargain collectively, rather, a collective agency represented by authorized individuals engages in the actual bargaining. Both parties in such a case will only come to agreement when both are satisfied that they will be better off as a result of the bargaining agreement.

If all the people being represented in this process are knowing and willing participants in the arrangement, and hae specified their desired outcome which is in harmony with the desires of their follows, then they may all be satisfied.

When arbitrary authority, as in the state, engages in such bargaining, the incentives are much different.

The authority can only purport to be representing the interests of the people. As it likely has not secured the explicit agreements of the represented individuals in any particular bargaining arrangement, then the agency will bargain on the basis of its own interest and is often subject to influence by those with resources and the greatest interest in the outcome of the bargaining.

Thus the outcome of political bargaining is likely to produce winners and losers among those who are supposedly being represented. Most often it is the case that more of those individuals will end up as losers to the greater benefit of the winners whose concentrated gains outweigh the diffuse costs borne by the losers.

And the losers have to just live with it!

And quite often, if it does worked as desired, the winners have to live with it too.

BTW, many here think that many things should not be put to a vote.

Capitalism – one wolf creates market value by converting the chook into chicken pieces and selling it to the other wolf.

Libertarianism – the wolves eat the chook as it is the natural order.

Once "we" do anything it is granted instant legitimacy. It's how most Germans went along with democratically elected Adolf Hitler.

Does this make me an anarchist?

Who is "we"? That's the problem with income tax.

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Mar 25, 2009 12:45:33 PM

should leave no doubt the Daniel is a socialist troll.

As I was reading down the comments I came across the one from Methinks and intended to post in reply, but I hit yours:

Methinks, I think you got this partly right: "It seems that Americans put all their faith in government until it fails them and then free market reform begins again."

From my observation it is more like:

It seems that Americans put all their faith in government until a failure happens and then they blame the free market and ask for reform in the form of more government action.

More succinctly, people often don't KNOW the cause of a failure but ASSUME it's free-market capitalism.

Posted by: CRC | Mar 25, 2009 1:02:13 PM

and saw there was no reason to, you had said exactly what I had intended.

Thank you.

Statism is so strong and government is so trusted and left unquestioned to right all perceived wrongs that even supposed free marketeers advocate completely unnecessary government control for no real reason other than that is how their mind is set once again proving that if you tell the same lie over and over again it will somehow become the "truth".

Sorry guys.

A. Just because something may better for you, is in no way a license for government to force you to behave in a certain way, otherwise It would be perfectly legitimate for government to tell me to eat my vegetables and lay off excess beer and steak (wer'e getting there, I know).

B. If Cuba or Soviet Russia executes one of their own for importing "contraband American goods that harm the general welfare", do we do the same when someone brings in Russian goods?

In the real world two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs. Maybe you're in accounting. I don't know.

Also, if you're worried about long term, I can assure you first hand that plenty damage is being done right now to businesses in the form of duty, customs brokerage and time – and we still can't export for free!

Freedom cannot be forced. Look no further than Cuba and pray tell me who benefits from us not doing business with them. Cubans are still oppressed as ever – free dental and all – and us and probably the Cubans are all the poorer for it.

Now to address both your questions together: If we wanted to bargain collectively we would bargain collectively, in the form of not doing business with certain countries. As for "showing them", that would do the trick.

If we are not bargaining collectively, that is a clear indicator that we don't wish to and are happier doing business this way. The fact that government has to force it and that without government intervention it wouldn't be, is a clear indicator that liberty is being violated.

One more thing: I did not advocate anarchy. Please read the post.

The "they believe it's a small price to pay for the "protection of American workers"." concern isn't entirely invalid.

It is pretty invalid. At best, it's hypocrisy. If people truly felt strongly about "saving american jobs", they would have paid more for the poorer product without having the government force it on them. It's obvious that people don't really care about American jobs until the government imposes tariffs which the average American doesn't understand and can do nothing about.

More jobs are lost than are gained as a result of protectionism. Where's the concern for that?

This is provably false. Governments have closed markets to negotiate more open markets. So, while in some cases the government prefers one vendor, in other cases it seeks more free trade. Shouldn't we distinguish between the two acts?

Forget the tit for tat part for a sec.

Main point was that tariffs differ greatly from taxes and are a form of punishment for not buying the very same item from the vendor the government would have preferred.