Two words, a bunch of syllables: "*Manifest Destiny*". The concept shoots these anarchists theories all to Hell.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *"Free trade and free immigration are terms that identify two aspects of > personal freedom. Someone who is free need not have permission from the > government to buy and sell from any consenting person in the world, and he > need not have permission from government to move to another region of the > world. The people who say they believe in freedom but who reject free trade > and free immigration mistakenly believe that those freedoms are not entailed > in the general notion of freedom and that they would violate the freedom of > others. We have shown that those arguments are in error." > > **Trade and Immigration Controls Assault the Right to Life > *by Sheldon Richman <http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxr.asp>, September > 1994 > > Ask Americans if they believe in the right to life, liberty, and the > pursuit of happiness, and they will say yes. But ask if they believe people > should be allowed to buy all the imported products they wish without tariffs > or other restrictions, and they will say no. Ask if citizens of other > countries should be free to move to the United States without having to get > permission from the U.S. government, and again they will say no. > > How can those positions be reconciled? After all, freedom means the right > to take any action that does not entail the use of initiatory force (or > fraud). That is the notion of freedom that inspired America's revolutionary > generation, and although that vision was not carried out with consistency, > in many ways modern America measures up much worse. > > Let's look at free trade and free immigration from the perspective of life, > liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > Under free trade, people living in different countries may buy and sell > products and services as they wish. Buyers are not penalized with a special > tax, a tariff, that only applies to imports. Sellers are not limited by > quota to a prescribed number of units. Neither are sellers penalized for > "dumping" if they charge "too low" a price in the eyes of the government or > domestic competitors. The prices and quantities of imports and exports are > left to the free decisions of buyers and sellers, which is to say, the > marketplace. When a buyer in Country A and a seller in Country B strike a > deal, no one else's rights and freedom are infringed. True, if a buyer > purchases an import, he may not buy a similar product from a domestic > manufacturer. But that manufacturer is no less free under those > circumstances. He has no right to guaranteed sales. He has a right only to > *offer* his products and to deal with consenting buyers. His freedom under > free trade is as complete as it could be. (A subsidy in the exporting > nation, however objectionable, does not restrict the freedom of competitors > in the importing nation.) > > However, in a regime of trade restrictions, the would-be buyer of an import > is less than free than he would otherwise be. His freedom to buy from > whomever he wishes is blocked. He is forbidden to act on his best judgment > with respect to the products he wants to acquire. That restriction is > enacted as a favor to someone else. Thus, the buyer's interests are forcibly > sacrificed to the manufacturer who refuses to take his chances in the free > market. > > The advocates of trade restrictions, or protectionism, argue that the > buying activities of individuals can harm others. A commercial frequently > shown on television has a mother explaining to a child that his father lost > his job in the apparel industry because people are buying imports. "Why do > they buy that stuff?" the child asks. "I don't know," says the distraught > mother as she packs the family's belongings. It is possible that if enough > people buy the imported version of a product, the workers making the > domestic version could lose their jobs. (Although that is not what has > happened in the apparel industry, where technology, not imports, has > eliminated jobs.) But that is far from the end of the story, as the > commercial implies. The buyers chose imports because they preferred the > quality or price or both. If, for higher quality, they paid the same price > as, or more than, what was charged for the domestic product, they have > enhanced their standard of living. If they paid less, they had money left > over, which also enhanced their standard of living. The extra money lets the > buyers purchase other products or increase the savings available for > investment in new products. Thus, the buyers of imports benefit not only > themselves but others also. Who? Those who make the other products they buy > with the money saved or those who will benefit from the new investment. > Moreover, foreign sellers have acquired dollars, which they will use either > to buy American-made products or to invest in the United States. (If they > trade them on the world exchange market, the recipients will face the same > alternatives.) > > The upshot, then, is that those who buy imports may cause some people's > jobs to be eliminated, but they also cause other jobs to be created or to > pay better. Why should government policy favor the apparel worker over, say, > the software programmer? > > The free movement of people also meets the test of individual liberty. > There is nothing inherently coercive about a foreigner's move to the United > States. He pays for transportation. He rents or buys living quarters. He > works for a consenting employer or starts his own business. Opponents of > free immigration see three complications. First, they argue that immigrants > take jobs from Americans or lower wages. Second, they say immigrants consume > more in government services than they pay in taxes. Third, they argue that > large numbers of immigrants harm everyone else through environmental > degradation and crowdedness. Let's take these in turn. > > Regarding jobs, the truth is similar to what happens with foreign trade. > Immigrants compete for jobs, and that competition may lower wages in > selected occupations. But no one's rights are violated by job competition. > Further, immigrants create jobs by demanding products and services and by > starting businesses. The number of jobs in a free economy is not fixed. > There is no reason to fixate on the jobs lost and neglect the jobs gained. > > Regarding consumption of government services, Julian Simon and others say > that, in fact, immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in services. But > even were that not so, the fault would not lie with the immigrants. It lies > with the legislators who pass laws providing taxpayer largess to immigrants > (and citizens). The simple answer is to stop providing that largess. Those > who say that we cannot have free immigration as long as the welfare state > exists miss the point. Free immigration will create pressure to cut back, > and then eliminate, the welfare state. Its absurdity will be so palpable > that people will change their minds about its legitimacy. On the other hand, > postponing freedom until the welfare state disappears is self-defeating. How > will we get rid of the welfare state if it is saved from its inevitable > dislocations and contradictions? > > Finally, regarding the environment: This is a variation of the > overpopulation argument. It is not the addition of people that creates > unhealthy conditions. It is the lack of property rights in resources. If > resources are privately owned, entrepreneurs and inventors will have a > strong incentive to find the technological solutions to pollution problems. > Even the fear of crowdedness through immigration is unfounded. The United > States is less densely populated than other industrialized countries. > There's plenty of room. The densely populated countries of the West are very > wealthy. Western Europe is more densely populated than Africa, Latin > America, and China. There is no connection between crowdedness (a highly > subjective matter; people often pay a premium to live in densely populated > areas) and poverty. > > Free trade and free immigration are terms that identify two aspects of > personal freedom. Someone who is free need not have permission from the > government to buy and sell from any consenting person in the world, and he > need not have permission from government to move to another region of the > world. The people who say they believe in freedom but who reject free trade > and free immigration mistakenly believe that those freedoms are not entailed > in the general notion of freedom and that they would violate the freedom of > others. We have shown that those arguments are in error. > > Freedom is indivisible because the lives of human beings are, in an > important sense, indivisible. To live well, a person must be able to plan > and act with reference to all aspects of his life throughout his life span. > The world is open-ended; one cannot know exactly what one will know > tomorrow. Part of the value of freedom is that it gives people the > flexibility to grapple with uncertainty. If the government interferes with > decisions about from whom one buys products or where one moves, it > interferes fundamentally with how people may plan and live their lives. > Trade and immigration controls are thus pernicious infringements on the > right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > http://www.fff.org/freedom/0994d.asp > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
