Delusion of Protectionism

Empirical historical data directly refutes this… …the periods were tariffs were at their highest when U.S. economic doctrine dictated such "protectionist" measures (1865-1929, 1933-1980).

And in recent years, this scenario has played out in Asian locales where those "protectionist" nations have seen skyrocketing economic growth whereas those nations drinking the neo-classical monetarist Kool-Aid have not profited in likewise manner.

buy r4ds

I totally agree, free trade is a human right should be allowed anywhere in the world.

the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions that leave both participants better off

Personally, I would limit the definition of free trade to engaging in voluntary transactions because I think people get hung up on the second part, leaving both participants better off. If one believes that subsidies are bad, then it follows that if you trade with someone who is subsidizing a good/service you may well believe you are not actually making them better off. However, if your trade partner believes that subsidies help them, their voluntary trading with you should still be viewed as free even if you hold a contrary on the benefit of the subsidy

Exactly. Harun may have a different view of global trade than I do. That doesn't give him any right to impose that view on me.

When you have a stipulation, such as a requirement on exchange rate, that is no longer free trade.

Thus, since China which has an exchange rate fixed by their government, we do not trade freely with China. Just so we cleared that up. Now, how do we convince them to start free trading to avoid the distortions that subsidies and barriers bring?

There is a difference between us trading freely with them and them trading freely with us. The fact that the Chinese government has an fixed exchange rate does not impede an American from freely trading with China. If you disagree with their fixed exchange rate (or any other form of subsidy) you can lecture them about the negatives it is causing and you can certainly NOT trade with them. However, when you seek to limit my ability to trade with them (through tariffs or other) you are infringing upon my free trade rights.

Free trade is excellent. So are free markets in currency and free markets with no state-run banks or industries. Talk to China about that please.

In the meantime what do we do with those impacted by these issues?

Now, yes, the consumers win big - that is true, but imagine a world without tenure, where Mr. Chen, Chang, and Li are quoting your university HR department every day, at 60-80% of your salary (the rest they will get from their own government in subsidy.) Assume they offer the same quality of work as you do. Assume that you are not free to work in China either - those are reserved for Chinese only.

So how do you feel? You will happily move over to the Janitorial staff with a pay cut - but hey when you audit econ courses they are now cheaper!

I make my money from exporting from China and Taiwan to the USA - I have no problem with free trade - but I do feel for people who are hit by unfair policies of China (or the US when we have them, and we do.)

Instead of pushing free trade in the USA, where it already exists to a very large extent, you might want to figure out how China can get there faster.

Harun has a great point, change such as ending tenure and having foreigners teach will only hurt Americans. Think of all those buggy whip and typewriter manufacturers that went out of business with the advent of automobiles and computers. Since they were there first we should shun new technology because it is unfair to put those old methods out of business. The economy would be much better if those people had their old jobs back and their previous wages because they will never be able to get other jobs that paid as well.

Oh, and if you wish to replace "foreigners" with econ profs from New Jersey who are receiving subsidies to undercut other econ profs instead, fine by me. The logic is the same - yes, it will help lower costs while the subsidy is in place, but that also creates problems.

I don't get the vociferous defense of unfree markets in the pursuit of free trade....yeah, sure we can snooker the Chinese to pay for the transfer of manufacturing skills and know-how that otherwise wouldn't go there, and get cheaper prices...sound great until our labor market reacts by only creating lawyers and no more CNC machinists based on faulty information. (yes, that's hyperbole.)

Well, I do not seek to control others behaviour. If the people of China or New Jersey wish to subsidize my consumption of education should I not take advantage of it? I can tell them that it is inefficient from thier POV, but why shouldnt I get something of the same value for less cost?

We all know that American manufacturing suffers from overseas production. There are 40% less people employed in manufacturing than there was 30 years ago. Why, oh why, is America letting itself turn into a country that doesn't make anything. </sarcasm> Of course, when one considers that an American manufacturing worker is 3x more productive today (in terms of $ value per worker) than 30 years ago and that, if U.S. manufacturing were it's own country it would be tied for the 4th largest GDP in the world, it is hard to believe the old canard that "America doesn't make anything anymore."

Let's see...I said I am for free trade, so where does it say I am for buggy whips to be brought back?

I am not even saying we need protectionism in the USA - far from it - I am asking for China to become more free.

So, here's a thought question: if the USA offered absolutely free trade to Chinese goods - 0% tarrifs on anything BUT required a currency rate of 4 RMB = 1 USD, what would you say to that?

Is that free trade? Should the Chinese economists jump for joy and write letters to the papers in China saying how awesome this deal is?

let me know.

Because, technically, that is offering free trade, right? Thus its a great deal for American and Chinese consumers!

Tort reform is another dimension to this discussion. Some argue that we should impose environmental regulations on trading partners, and others mistakenly argue that we should impose wage restrictions on foreign governments to 'make it fair.'

Many folks do not realize that the lack of tort reform is an incredible incentive to offshore. There is another one; if a firm buys a company or land that is deemed unfit by the EPA, they take on the liability to clean it up in perpetuity, regardless of whether it will be paved over or not.

In my humble experience these two potential externalities are much larger incentives to offshore than people imagine, and a lot of deals never get done that look fantastic on paper without them.

I would bet money that the dormant shambles of inner city Detroit are greatly disaffected by these two issues as well.

Yep. Actually much of China's advantage in trade comes from these sorts of issues.

The only solution is to figure out how to export Lawyers to China. Maybe allow grad students only if 50% are law school students?

Engaging in trade is a liberty (or 'natural right') in all societies which have lasted more than five minutes. It can be suppressed by force at some cost, but if that suppression becomes total the society dies. Same with socialism generally.

Can't help but agree with your first two sentences, but you lost me on that last one. What were you trying to say?

Only that total control of trade is (also) a necessary component of socialism - otherwise The Plan gets screwed up, and we can't have that. So socialism destroys a society just as efficiently as suppression of trade, and for pretty much the same reason.

Just a throw-away line. As you note, the first two sentences are what I mainly meant to say.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. Preciate it.

Maybe the term "socialism" isn't quite useful enough.

Even collectivist doesn't quite reach it.

Perhaps Ayn Rand's "looters" gets there.

The struggle is against all those that seek to control the resources created by the productive.

Collectivism is a criminal philosophy, for in practice it means that those who do not produce value rule over those that do produce value.

No, it is probably me, but I just don't get how his last sentence fits with his first two sentences. I don't understand.

When I look at it one way I can read it as being redundant and another as totally disconnected.

In spite of your generous attempt, I still am not any closer.

I think he was being redundant.

Off topic, Can someone suggest a study on environmental impact of industrialization on 19th century america. Any regulations that might be relevant?

Muirgeo is 6'10? Probably quite the aspiring Alexander Belov back in the day.

A human right. Not bad. Or, the way I see it, the economy is the property of those who create it.

In order to let a young market grow within its own country sometimes it is necessary to protect until they are ready to compete.

That only encourages those in a young market to indulge in activity at which they do not have a real advantage.

... just give us a few more decades.

"...it should make no difference to the lawfulness of their exchange whether they are residents of different neighborhoods, different states, or different nations."

This would be more clearly true IF those different nations used the dollar for all of their transactions, including their own taxes, AND the laws in all of those jurisdictions were identical.

Otherwise, there is clearly a difference. Whether or not those differences are significant is a different debate.

This would be more clearly true IF those different nations used the dollar for all of their transactions, including their own taxes, AND the laws in all of those jurisdictions were identical.

These stipulations are not even true within the US, or even within states. Different cities even have different taxes and regulations. The question is whether the differences should affect the "lawfulness" of free exchange. They clearly should not.

Last I looked, all but a tiny faction of transactions in the U.S. used dollars.

Consider the following (absurd by illustrative example): 3 groupings of people - A, B, and C. People in A and B trade both within their grouping and externally as individuals. Grouping C is a collective, so all trade is done with the government of C. Furthermore, the government of C has the goal of using all resources possible to buy weapons in order to take over A and B and the available resources is increased via trade with A and B.

In this case, I believe that the governments of A and B should lawfully restrict trade with C.

While absurd, this example has some relationship with Cold War (U.S. versus U.S.S.R). It perhaps has some relationship with our trade with certain countries today.

To say that there should be no difference ever in the trade regulations requires a hugely naive perspective that completely ignores geopolitical considerations.

I should have said, not ALL the stipulations you cite are true even within the US.

Frederic Bastiat: “When goods cross borders, armies don't.”

You seem to forget that both sides benefit from trade. The US has done well through trade in accumulating resources to buy weapons which it could use to take over countries A or B or C.

Listen dude...the U.S. is not a purely capitalist country. It operates with many capitalist fundamentals.

Although I think too much regulation and too many trade barriers make our economy dysfunctional, we still need some regulation and trade barriers.

For instance, tariffs on a finished good, such as a car, is probably a good idea. Same goes for steel. Because unions are such parasites to foreign multinationals, they won't manufacture in the U.S. Regulations on certain industries induce them to manufacture here if they wish to sell here as well.

Americans are losing their competitive edge in many fields...tariffs and regulation, is in many cases, all that's keeping them in the job.

Tariffs and regulations are exactly what is causing any loss of competitive edge.

hmmmm....

Tariffs and regulations SO loss in competitive edge

or

Loss in competitive edge SO tariffs and regulation

I am not familiar with your terminology there, sir.

But, perhaps we could close the debate if we knew positively that we have the same thing in mind when we say competitive edge. I am not sure we see it the same way.

To me, I have the competitive edge on a particular task when I am better at it than you. I don't see tariffs or regulations changing that status, only interfering with it. In other words tariffs and regs don't take away my competitive edge, only prevent me from using it to my advantage. Therefore I conclude that tariffs and regs cause me loss, not the competitive edge which hasn't changed.

Did I explain that well?

Or, perhaps you are arguing competitive edge from a second party (government) viewpoint?

Does this distinction matter? Yes, I think it does, as if I am right it is just one more argument for getting government out of the markets, totally.

Before I go on, keep in mind I prefer as little government intervention as possible in regard to tax, regulation, and spending. There should be such things, but they should be marginal.

Sorry for the miscommunication. I think you were looking at it from the firm's point of view. Of course, tariffs and regulations hurt any firm or country as a whole if they disallow them from capitalizing on their comparative and absolute advantages. Think of our tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.

I was thinking about tariffs and regulations from a social welfare standpoint. Though, again, only if absolutely necessary. That doesn't mean the government should protect every industry it feels is uncompetitive with tariffs. I agree that any type of tariffs and regulation hurt consumers by lowering their purchasing power. However, I also don't want millions of Americans, who don't have a Herbert Hoover mindset, flipping burgers if they could have been working at a steel mill.

All in all, I agree that we should be getting government out of the markets. However, there is a problem with the American mindset in general. We fail to understand that certain industries have become "globalized," and we are simply uncompetitive in them. These same industries are heavily inundated by unions (which I'm not a huge fan of), but at the same time hire Americans who aren't great innovators or intellectuals. They make up the bulk of the United States. They need jobs right? We can go on about how great the free market is, and it is, but we have to understand that capitalism is not for the faint of heart. In the end, Americans still need to put food on the table.

The way I like to think of it is in terms of value chains. While goods production industries have mechanized, or offshored, American labor bore the cost. Thus, the assembly and manufacturing parts of a given value chain have moved to LDCs or simply didn't require as much labor. But the research and development, as well as, management sections of those chains have still stayed in the U.S. (though slowly dissipating). However, those sections of the value chains require extremely educated people. The point is, Americans need to be proficient in those fields which required advanced skills (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, finance, insurance etc.). But a great deal of the U.S. is not. I know, as I had the unfortunate pleasure of being a student in New York City's school system.

However, there is a problem with the American mindset in general. We fail to understand that certain industries have become "globalized,"

That is a problem that can be taken care of with a tariff.


The point is, Americans need to be proficient in those fields which required advanced skills (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, finance, insurance etc.). But a great deal of the U.S. is not.

Better to keep those industries here unless you have a way to deal with the displaced on their terms. No, you don't simply just wait out until they're an ignorable minority. You're expecting too many people to have those high-level degrees and not care about those who don't (yet have practical experience).

No, immigration increases are not the answer as they do not deal with the citizens that are displaced. Secondly, turning the country to staffing agencies only makes the problem worse by removing accountability.


They need jobs right? We can go on about how great the free market is, and it is, but we have to understand that capitalism is not for the faint of heart. In the end, Americans still need to put food on the table.

That's the problem with offshoring.

Michael Pinto-Fernandes: "I also don't want millions of Americans, who don't have a Herbert Hoover mindset, flipping burgers if they could have been working at a steel mill. "

First, I don't see anything wrong with food preparation as either a career or as an entry into the workforce. I've worked as an industrial engineer, as a computer programmer, and as afinance manager. I've also owned three small businesses. But I started out many years ago as a "burger flipper".

Second, the portion of service workers employed "flipping burgers" is very small. Many Americans are happily employed today hair stylists, hospital aides, delivery couriers, truck drivers, flight attendants, firefighters, correctional officers, child care workers, and many more non-professional occupations.


Michael Pinto-Fernandes: "Americans need to be proficient in those fields which required advanced skills (science, technology, engineering, mathematics, finance, insurance etc.). But a great deal of the U.S. is not."

I agree that Americans who are proficient in the skills you list will prosper more than those who are not. But I'm not that all Americans need to possess such skills. Very few of the service jobs in this nation are at risk of being offshored.

I think you're analyzing my examples to an unnecessary nth degree.

There is nothing wrong with food preparation. I didn't say there was. In a previous post, Mr. Bordeaux talked about how jobs infinite, but value producing opportunities aren't. I hardly think the realistic compensation of unskilled, or relatively unskilled, service jobs is comparable to the STEM and FIRE fields. The reason is because those "non-professional occupations" have been heavily saturated, so the the value producing opportunities those professions yield aren't particularly favorable. Now, people want to maximize the amount of money earned so that they may increase their marginal consumption, right? The point is, the fields with the best value producing opportunities have taken a major shift in another direction. Americans are finding it hard to shift along with this change. It's easier to be a cashier than a cryogenic engineer.

Also, congratulations on your amazing professional experience. I hope I move into comparable fields with comparable pay after my education. But, I need to work hard towards it don't I? Does everyone have such prospects? Maybe, maybe not. But, everyone surely wants the spending power those professions yield.

To your last comment. Of course not every service job in the nation is at risk of being offshored. That's not what I'm worried about. I"ll give you an example of what I am worried about though. If you look at say, Duke's PhD program in economics, something stands out about their admission FAQ. They say 75% of their students are from other countries. Economics is a pretty mathematics intensive major, and I'm guessing that's the reason why 75% of their PhD students are from overseas. Right now, we have enough students graduating in advanced fields to fill up all those value-producing opportunities here in the States. But what about 2 decades from now? Will those foreigners be gunning for American colleges or will their own countries produce sufficient domestic opportunities. Wouldn't American multinationals then focus investment and job creation in advanced degree fields abroad?

This "offshoring" business is not an isolated event. It's the effect of cost changes Americans still have not culturally accepted. It's also probably a precursor to a bigger economic problem we may face in the future, which is the abatement of domestic innovation.

Michael Pinto-Fernandes: "This "offshoring" business is not an isolated event. It's the effect of cost changes Americans still have not culturally accepted. It's also probably a precursor to a bigger economic problem we may face in the future, which is the abatement of domestic innovation."

I agree the U.S. would be better off if more young Americans embraced the sciences. But I do not believe domestic innovation depends so much on the portion of native-born Americans who are educated in math, science, and engineering. Rather, innovation is much more dependent on personal freedom. To me, the risk to future American prosperity is not the growing dependence on imported technical skills. It's the attempts to direct the economy, the growing influence of central planners, which will cause us to misallocate so many resources that American innovation suffers. We can import skills. We cannot import freedom.

...we can also make do with the people we already have.

Not everyone in the US is going to be able to attain an advanced degree, but has some not-so-blue-collar skillset to them. It would be our advantage to put said talent to use while we still can.

This "offshoring" business is not an isolated event. It's the effect of cost changes Americans still have not culturally accepted. It's also probably a precursor to a bigger economic problem we may face in the future, which is the abatement of domestic innovation.

Well, it did start as a novel way to evade having to hire a US citizen to do some work. Now, it's the matter of a large volume of foreigners weighing down against our nation to accept it. The problem is that you have a sizable amount of displaced that can't find work and/or have issues with education(funding, etc.). Continuing to ignore or wait out until you can ignore it(due to it being a ignorably small problem) will only make things worse off. It would be better to deal with the displaced on their terms; if that means keeping the other countries at bay, so be it.

If anything, there should be some sort of effort for non-degreed, government clearance work to fill in the gap. If there's all that research, I'd think that there are ways that it can be supported by citizens whom have various skillsets, but not a full degree.

On education:
The question is how we're going to have to prioritize all citizens first, then foreign colleges by merit and full (no scholarship) payment? It's no longer an "if" question, but a "when and how" question. Then figure out how to combat offshoring to preserve some domestic industry that would otherwise be stolen.

sethstorm: "we're going to have to prioritize all citizens first, then foreign colleges by merit and full (no scholarship) payment"

That may be your desire, but It certainly isn't mine. I want as many of the best minds from all over the world as possible working in the U.S. One proven method for getting them here is to educate them here and then allow U.S. based operations to hire them. Protectionists - and I assume you are one, sethstorm - are opposed to both educating and hiring great minds if those minds were not born here. Why?

We already have the people and they can do the job. You just have some slight against hiring a US citizen.

What you propose does not help the citizens in any single way. With that said, what of the citizens that exist? Are you just going to wait them out until they can safely be ignored?

My point remains the same - citizens first, then legal immigrants whether it be jobs or education.

That was interesting and thought provoking. You truly put a lot into that post that you and I could consume two or three bottles of wine discussing in finding our common ground, which by the way is very close.

I'll tell you without embarrassment that far and away most of what I know about markets, trade, and business comes from the result of my shoe leather meeting the street. Any understandings I have developed come from taking that earned knowledge and running it around in my brain until I come to a personal theory on what I have seen, done, and thought about. Along the way bits and pieces come to me from outside sources (other than my brain) and when they fit I can expand or confirm my own intellectual process.

Most of all I am a straightforward thinker and tend to look for and focus on the core, or root, of a problem(s). I realize that in today's world, and on this blog, this can make me appear to be unappreciative of externalities; but such is not the case. My simple straightforward approach is the result of learning the hard way, and believing it to the core of my soul, that worrying about or attempting to cure externalities is a lost cause of endless chasing after the same tasks, and will be until the fix or cure is made to the core problem. Cure or fix the problem and the externalities all fade away on their own.

I appreciate you taking the time to share those thoughts with me.

Well, the chicken came first, obviously.

Of course in recent posts you've pointed to the greatness of our economy pre-1900 when there were NO income taxes and all government money came through tariffs. How could that be?

How could what be, dipshit? Care to clarify?

What is your argument against Jacoby's theme - "It is a human right - the liberty to engage in voluntary transactions." ??

Here's the argument against his theme if you claim to be concerned bout human rights;

" The great multinationals are unwilling to face the moral and economic contradictions of their own behavior - producing in low-wage dictatorships and selling to high-wage democracies. Indeed, the striking quality about global enterprises is how easily free-market capitalism puts aside its supposed values in order to do business. The conditions of human freedom do not matter to them so long as the market demand is robust. The absence of freedom, if anything, lends order and efficiency to their operations."

William Greider, journalist and author

No matter how many times you repeat this Greider quote here, it is still nonsense.

There is no moral or economic contradiction in being willing to trade freely despite barriers and roadblocks erected by various governmental bureaucracies around the globe. Every government restricts freedom in varying degrees. Trading with someone in a low-wage dictatorship does not make them worse off. The more trade the less likely their government remains a low-wage dictatorship.

I think that what we have to recognize is that William Greider as an journalist and author doesn't have any better grasp of markets and doing business than does an idiot doctor who lives in California and finds intellectual parity with the kids he treats. So who gives a crap what he says, he is wrong.

Vidyohs!

How unkind to Yasafi's patients! I doubt Yasafi has one patient that is as intellectually deficient as he is. His two-year-olds may not be as educated as our Dear Ducktor (then again they might be), but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're as intellectually deficient.

:-p

True. I would guesstimate that there is hope for the kids he treats, especially if they get them away from him before he can infect them with stupidity. But the muirduck's comprehension of markets, trade, and business in general is so childlike that I think the word parity in comparison twixt the duck and a 2 year old is a good one.

The Greider quote is not non-sense. What you wrote IS non-sense. You just repeat the contradiction he brings out. Do you believe in rights or not. I'd say you don't. If you like pre-teen prostitutes Greg there is a good trading market for them in India I hear. Go do them a favor and trade freely with them as you say because there are no contradictions. It's win win. Just like companies bypassing work and environmental standards to make cheap products elsewhere. It's a matter of where you draw the line.

We've decided here that pre-teen prostitution is not a good idea nor is worker exploitation or environmental degradation. There should be barriers to trade on countries that don't respect out standards. And people who don't like our standards should move to communist China or do business in the slums of India or shut the hell up about our standards and "protectionism".

What in the hell does teen prostitution in India have to do with me buying shoes from someone in India? Am I somehow promoting everything that anyone in India does when I buy something from there? That is absurd.

I believe that avoiding starvation is preferable to some arbitrary labor or environmental standards. I have no problem if people in India make that trade-off.

You are welcome to buy products only from people in countries that meet your standards. Do not think that you have any right to restrict from where and from whom I buy products. I would be curious to look through the products you own and see how many come from countries where you think it would be preferable for the people to starve.

"That is absurd."


What IS absurd is excusing slavery, servitude, communism, environmental degradation, lack of work place safety, 80 hour work weeks or other rights violations because they occur in other countries. If you trade with communist or slave owners or other deniers of liberty you are a supporter of slavery, of communism and YOU ARE A VIOLATOR of liberty no matter how inconvenient that is for you and your WalMart shopping for cheap plastic things.

That's the problem with you libertarians. You're all concerned about liberty but if the individual violations are small enough like a pound of CO2 here, a milligram of lead there or a touch of slavery far far away they can be ignored even if the cumulative effect multiplied by billions means brain damaged kids and a warming atmosphere for future generations.

You like liberty when its convenient for you but you really don't concern yourself with it if its violations are out of sight and mind.

Well, since you are a denier of liberty, I will not be buying anything from you.

I am not excusing anything. When I buy something made in China, for example, I am not buying from the whole country, or the government, I am buying from the individuals who are offering it for sale.

Here is a quote from factcheck.org where Chris Dodd was rebuked for his mention of slave labor in China during one of the presidential debates:

Dodd is right that slave labor exists in China. In June 2007, a group of parents in Shanxi Province discovered that owners of many of the region's brick kilns were kidnapping and enslaving children, forcing them to work up to 18 hours per day. But Dodd is wrong to suggest that the Chinese government is sanctioning slavery. Nearly 35,000 police officers descended on Shanxi province, raiding more than 7,500 work places. And less than a month after the story garnered international headlines, Chinese courts had sentenced 28 overseers at the kiln to prison and ordered another executed.

The argument you make is like those who say not to buy Middle Eastern oil because it is supporting terrorists. Not everyone in the Middle East is a terrorist. That is like saying do not put your money in banks because you are supporting bank robbers.

To follow your logic, one could not buy anything from anyone.

Since when is it a crime to work hard by putting in an 80 hour week? You go from one absurdity to another.

You conveniently failed to comment on the products in your home. I just wonder how much of a hypocrite you are.

The problem is that you fail to take into account non-economic liberties that are taken away to prioritize towards economic liberties.

What was done in Shanxi was done as a one-off bid to appease foreign interests; they can always hand it to another family down the river and the slave labor can continue. Your "rebuke" would have some substance if that was general practice, and businesses didn't have the idea that they were The Almighty and Unaccountable.

You are indeed buying it from the country; your money has gone to the organization that sold you that good, eventually that money goes down to their government. Yes, that includes the Chinese (or other Third World) manufacturer that flouts the local wage laws and runs the "company town", to the gov't officials on their end that buy up our debt and lobby our Congress.


You would have a point if they stopped the practice 15-20 years ago as a matter of "progress". All you get is them practicing the old "company town" type of economics.

Duh muirgeo - whether certain forms of slavery are compatible with Libertarianism is debatable but there nothing wrong with buying the products of someone else's slaves. It ultimately benefits the slaves.

Good point muir. Our hands are soaked in the blood of the innocent because of our vote for war profiteering Diane Feinstein. But don't tell these libertiarians, let that be our little secret. Love you, mmmmwwwwaaahhhhh

I'm not arguing whether or not it is a human right to freely trade. Of course it is. I was saying that even though free trade was a "human right," it doesn't necessarily supersede the perceived social welfare that si protected by regulation and tariffs.

I mean, humans have the right to buy illegal drugs, steal, and kill. Though, it's best the "right" to do all of that is regulated.

"I was saying that even though free trade was a "human right," it doesn't necessarily supersede the perceived social welfare that si protected by regulation and tariffs."

In other words, human rights are subordinate to the desires of those who claim to speak for "society". That's a pretty good definition of fascism right there.

No, I think that's a pretty good definition of reality lol.

Tyranny jumps out of democracy.

Fascism is reality, no about it. And tyranny is the natural objective of any political class. Democracy is no exception, though tyranny must perhaps be more subtle in a society with democratic traditions. That's what fascism is. Studied and therefore subtle tryanny, as opposed to blunt tyranny. Of course, there's no reason for it to stay subtle once firmly established.

Well, if fascism is firmly established, it would be subtle :)

Yes. Subtle enough that the government could effectively control the largest sectors of the economy while still blaming greedy free markets for every downturn. Subtle enough that a military composed of people from the working class could be sent to every hell hole on earth while still believing that they are fighting for "freedom". I am reminded of how many in post war Germany would deny that they were Nazis, though it wasn't really possible in fascist Germany to function without either playing an active role or turning a blind eye.

I can't believe I have to say this to anyone, but stealing and killing are not rights. They are, in fact, the most severe violations of the most basic human rights.

I'm 6 foot 10 with a huge personal milita to protect myself. Just because you can't protect yourself from theft and murder you think it's my responsibility to pay taxes to protect you... BS man... you socialist!

Rights are defined by society.

So if rights are defined by these sorts of protection agreements, what exactly have we agreed to in this country and what rights should we expect to be afforded by our 6' 10" overlords? Is the Constitution such a contract? Do we have a right to trade with anyone we damn well please under its terms? Some would say yes and others no (see Randy Barnet). Is a vote or an election a contract? Most would say no (also see Barnet and others). I don't see your point outside the semantics here.

Past that, what about the consequences of protectionism? In think there is ample evidence (some of which has been outlined on this site and in referenced books) to show that its consequences are beneficial. In fact, free trade has been shown to be one of the pillars of our wealth. So, on what grounds would you have governments restrict it? I want you to focus on that word government b/c you as an individual and as a potential organizer of individuals in cooperation with you have every right not to trade with someone. Justifying a government's restriction of trade, on the other hand, seems to be tricky b/c of governments' track record in this area. They don't restrict trade to help out poor Joe Schmo, they do it to help themselves (see Public Choice). The historical record on this point cannot be ignored. By the way, most of these same arguments could be made about health care, which you made some snarky references to later in discussion.

Rights are defined by society? In some societies, rape victims are stoned to death.

But, of course, such women having a 'right' not to be raped or stoned to death would be a 'positive right'.

Yep... and in some societies everyone gets health care while in more barbaric ones they don't.

Giving government the right to control anything and everything related to health opens the door for the progressives to return to their eugenics roots. Taking over the economy is just a means to an end. The end is heaven on earth, and heaven on earth means an end to the ugliness. That is, progressives don't want to take care of the under classes. They want them gone. Because you just can't have heaven on earth with all those crass, stupid, lazy sub-humans using up precious resources and blocking the view. When the progressives finally realize that throwing money at it just will not make the ugliness go away, then they will resort to any means necessary. Think it can't happen? Why not? As the eugenicists would say, its the only "real" socialism.

Talk about your barbarism...

Yeah Randy... you figured us out. We ARE Eugenicists. It has nothing to do with real world pragmatism or efficiency.

On the contrary, eugenics has everything to do with real world pragmatism and efficiency. The question is what to do with the uglier aspects of human nature. The progressive, being unwilling to just live with them, says they must be fixed. The eugenicist is a progressive who has realized that fixing them will not be possible, but who still holds to the dream of bringing about heaven on earth, and therefore advocates more effective measures. It was for this reason that the original eugenicists used the term "real socialism" to describe themselves, and also coined the term "social darwinism" to describe those who did not believe in the use of active measures to reduce the ugliness.

You think this is not "real" because you believe it can't happen here. It has, it can and it will, because fascists are by nature progressive and vice versa. By nature. That is real.

Eugenics indeed brotio - the U.S. declared war on Japan though economic sanctions in which Japan would retaliate and lose with great loss of life of their men. Hence nowadays the Japanese women complain "there's virtually no real men left in Japan" because they all but died in WW2 and left very few sons. Google "japan herbivore" for more info.

Good point muirgeo, we are all pragmatists. The fact that we and our gazillionaire buddies like Al Gore, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey roll in our cash is just a symbolic representation of our pragmatism. We need to get that Cap and Trade working at full throttle quickly, if not global warming might get burried under 24 more inches of snow every day.

Mmmmmwwwwaaahhhh

He's got a point. Historically, rights have indeed been defined, not by "society", but by those who claim to speak for society, i.e., the poltical class. The only effective counter historically has been religion, which is why political classes have always been determined to tie religion to the state (e.g., ancient Rome and American progressivism). So, how to make a counter religion out of freedom and respect for human rights? It appears that the first attempt has failed.

Dipshit,

Rights are defined by being, privileges are defined by society and government.

That is the problem with you useful idiots, you don't know WTF you're talking about......ever.

"Rights are defined by being, privileges are defined by society and government."


Nope they are the same thing. A right as you define it won't do crap about a 6 foot 10 neighbor conking you on the head and taking your beer. You could tell him all about your right derived from your "being"... but he'll still conk you on your head and take your beer.

Dip-shit, your IQ registers lower on the scale than your sex life.

Black's law disagrees with you, Webster's disagrees with you, everyone with a IQ in double digits and up disagrees with you.

Black's 7th Ed: Natural right. A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. (See natural law)

There is no definition of Natural Privilege in Black's law, all definitions are defined by the law of man (society).

Webster's New Collegiate:
Natural Right. See natural law.
Natural law. a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the of or in addition to positive law.

There is no definition or direction for natural privilege, all definitions show privileges are granted by society.


I know I know, Black was bought off by the Bankers, Webster was subverted by the tobacco and cotton cartel, and the rest of us all sold out to Shell Oil.

Only idiot socialist (oops redundant) thumbsuckers have the privilege of privilege. Your lying attempts to confuse the issue is just more of the standard socialist ploys.

So vidyohs tell me in real world terms how your rights stop 6 foot 10 Bruno from conking you on the head and taking your beer?

Do your rights some how come in and hold his fist back? Does the Invisible Hand God stop him. If he wants to conk you on the head he's going to even while you are explaining Black's Law to him... it won't stop his fist dopey. What the hell are you thinking??? Like Bruno gives a crap about your definitions. And all this time you've been under the impression its some natural right that is protecting your sorry MinArcAss not realizing it was the society you live in and its agreed upon laws.

And all this time you've been under the impression its some natural right that is protecting your sorry MinArcAss not realizing it was the society you live in and its agreed upon laws. - Yasafi

You've said some pretty stupid things. I think the Official List is up to #49. This might give you 50.

If your reasoning was anywhere near correct, why are women raped in this society? Why doesn't society prevent every rape, robbery, and murder?

I am the only person responsible (look up the word responsible if you don't understand it in this context) for the defense of my life and my property. I can delegate authority to some security force to aid me in that defense, but I am the one who will pay with my life if they fail, so I'd better be prepared for the possibility that they will fail. When Bruno comes looking to conk me on the head and steal my beer, he'd better hope Mr Ruger's revolver doesn't answer first.

You could tell him all about your right derived from your "being"... but he'll still conk you on your head and take your beer.

Wonderful point muir. But don't tell them that the 6'10" neighbor who is conking on his head and stealing his beer is actually the Government. Libertarians are fools.

Love you, mmmmwwwwaaaaahhhh

No, I think they're human rights. This doesn't go to say that the victims don't have the rights to defend themselves.

Define "human rights."

From the United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups."

Don't you notice, good sir, that what you quoted doesn't define rights?

It talks about the applicability of rights, and does state they are inherent to all human beings (notice it does not say assigned by government or society, but inherent).

It talks about how rights are commonly, but not exclusively, expressed; but it never defines a right(s).

A right is what I can do because I am, and as long as exercising that right does not harm another in anyway, including property of the other or its use, then no one can say me nay.

That is a right.

I know what you mean, but you should use the word "liberty" instead. A "right" is (also) something that can be bought - as in "I bought a right to use that land".

In the context of this debate or discussion, I'll stick to the word right, because it is clear that the discussion or debate is about natural rights Vs state/society granted privilege.

Sounds like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am."

"and as long as exercising that right does not harm another in anyway, including property of the other or its use, then no one can say me nay." That's purely based on a subjective standard.

We all have different interpretations on what a "right" is. I also don't think you can have a philosophy on how to interpret rights because a "right" can be a right at one point, and be a privilege at another.

Can we at least agree on that?

Btw, you don't have to call me sir. I'm probably WAYYY younger than you and with half your knowledge.

Odds are you're right about the age, but that doesn't matter and it took me a long time to learn it in my transition from a wise ass kid to what ever it is I am today. If I respect your presentation and see you are sincere them I am not diminished in the least to address you as sir. Or, :-), I might be positioning you directly in front of the cross-hairs....time tells all.

Let me suggest that the difference between a right and a privilege is never subjective.

You can't grant me my rights nor take them away.

You can give me privileges and you can deny them (take them away).

"and as long as exercising that right does not harm another in anyway, including property of the other or its use, then no one can say me nay." That's purely based on a subjective standard......not so, as, in an objective manner harm can be shown or not shown.

And, actually it is like Descartes in that sense, I am therefore I have rights.

You see no one denies that rights can be violated, the free exercise thereof denied, restricted or curtailed. Hells bells, that is obvious. Force can accomplish what reason can not, captivity.

However, think about it. Though you imprison me, you still can't take away my right to free travel. The right remains though you prevent or inhibit me from exercising it. Understand that the moment I find myself capable I will exercise it with or without your permission. Without your application of force I will move as I see fit, as is my right.

When faced with force that denies exercising of rights we all have options. That option #1 Give in, is sadly the one most chosen is a disgrace to those who call themselves a free people.