Tweet [1]
Protectionists:
If, as you assert, damage to domestic industry is sufficient reason to have the government forcibly prevent fellow citizens from buying goods produced in another country, is damage to domestic industry sufficient reason to have the government forcibly prevent fellow citizens from buying goods produced in another time period – namely, in the past?
After all, used cars, used furniture, used appliances, and ‘recycled’ clothing have, by protectionists’ criteria, an unfair cost advantage over new cars, new furniture, new appliances, and new clothing. And the greater the quantities that consumers buy of these used goods, the fewer are the quantities that consumers buy of their newly produced counterparts. Domestic producers, therefore, are invariably harmed. So I ask protectionists: Do you wish to empower the state to superintend – and to obstruct – ordinary people’s peaceful decisions to purchase used products?
If you do not support such state power, can you distinguish in any economically and ethically plausible manner your reason for supporting state obstructions of domestic-citizens’ purchases of imports that are deemed to damage domestic producers while you refuse to support state obstructions of domestic-citizens’ purchases of used goods – purchases that inflict no less damage on domestic firms than do domestic-citizens’ purchases of imports?