… upon seeing Jones’s riches increase when Jones robs Smith, concludes that Jones and Smith are thereby made collectively richer; the protectionist then counsels that Smith and Jones can further increase their collective riches if Smith now rob Jones. Blind to all but the immediate bounty of the plunderer, the protectionist concludes that plunder is a means of collective enrichment.
Of course, the fact that the protectionist calls the plunder that he or she recommends “protection” – or “trade policy” – or “America First!” or “India First!” or “You-name-the-country First!” or whatever – does nothing at all to alter the essence of what is going on: P, to enrich himself, uses G to forcibly prevent D from dealing with F. That’s plunder regardless of what it’s called.
Share
