…that merely by identifying a benefit, one has identified a justification for the state to act to bring about that benefit; and who believes also that merely by identifying a cost, one has identified a justification for the state to act to make that cost disappear. That which is foregone by such state actions is never considered.
For example: The protectionist surveys reality and notices that his country imports some products that the protectionist recognizes will cause discomfort to his fellow citizens if those imports are suddenly reduced by the actions of foreigners. The protectionist then leaps confidently to the conclusion that his government should coercively restrict his fellow citizens’ freedom to purchase those imports, hoping that the result will be greater domestic production of those goods. (The protectionist is seldom troubled by the need to explain why if access to those imported goods is blocked by his government the result for his fellow citizens is beneficial, but if access to those imported goods is blocked by foreigners the result for his fellow citizens is detrimental. But never mind….)
The protectionist ends his analysis here, with the recognition that his protectionist policies protect his fellow citizens from the risk of being denied by foreign suppliers those particular goods in the future. He pats himself on the back for recommending that his own government deny his fellow citizens access to those imports today so that more domestic resources will be directed into the domestic production of those goods.
The protectionist never bothers to ask what are the domestic industries that contract or even disappear because of his protectionist measures.
The protectionist is a one-step thinker in a multi-step reality. He believes that he’s won the day, intellectually and ethically, by explaining what happens in step one and by only explaining what happens in step one. The protectionist ignores everything beyond step one. And for this habit he fancies himself intellectually and ethically superior to those of us who point out that, in the real world, step one is always followed by step two, three, … n.
