I understand the sentiment, but non-protectionism can be just as bad as (or
worse than) protectionism. Why dilute conceptual clarity to make a
rhetorical point?
Michael Perelman writes:
>It is not protectionism, like the violence instigated by the US is not
>terrorism. Protectionism (terrorism) is what the other guy does.
>
>Jim Devine wrote:
> >
> > Michael wrote:
> > >It may be that intellectual property laws may be the most effective form
> > >of protectionism devised so far.
> >
> > except that it's not the kind of thing that's called "protectionism." It
> > protects individual corporations or other property-holders, not the
> > domestic markets of countries. It's an extension of "normal" property
> > rights like patents, copyrights, trade marks, etc. The owners of
> > "intellectual property" can easily take their property and move to another
> > country.
> >
> > max writes:>Michael Lind (The Next American Nation) makes the point that
> > patents, IP, and professional licensure (i.e.,
> > tenure!) are the upper-class ("white overclass") variant of
> > protectionism.Consistent free-traders should be willing to do away
> > with those barriers to trade as well. How do laissez faire econ profs
> > justify tenure?<
> >
> > professional licensure is definitely a form of protectionism as the word is
> > usually used.
> >
> > BTW, I used to have a colleague who wanted to reject tenure on the basis on
> > laissez-faire principles. The college said: either take tenure or leave. He
> > stayed, eventually ending up in the administration.
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>
>--
>
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
