Free Trade? Fair Trade?

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm quite free market, but even I can say that some government action is necessary. Personally I like having a police force, a dedicated firefighting profession, and a postal service, all of which are government monopolies (save postal, which is nonetheless very monopolistic).
Also, and this is out of character for Americans (good thing I'm not one) I actually do support the Canadian healthcare system. Obviously I think there are ways to improve it, but I think it works. The numbers back me up

To return to the original question, I decided to vote other. Free trade has been abused, fair trade is a system that I mistrust, but it doesn't have to be one or the other. Responsible free trade.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1253679977' post='1971335']
You just listed a bunch of corrupt economists. So what? I can list a bunch of corrupt doctors too. All it would mean is what I've said from the start, which is that every profession has corruption.[/quote]

How many of those doctors can harm everyone in the country?

[quote]By the way, I believe that your original argument was that formal economic training is useless. Now it seems like you're saying instead that economists who work for the state are all scum.
[/quote]

My original argument was that formal economic training in the current school of Keynesian/monetarist thought is useless. Unless your career goals include destroying the economy of an entire nation. In that case, it is indispensable.

Not all State economists are scum. There are some very well-intentioned, highly-educated and intelligent people who are striving with every fiber of their being to "do a good job." Their high degree of integrity does not change the fact that they are diligent bricklayers on the road to economic hell.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1253682992' post='1971353']
I'm quite free market, but even I can say that some government action is necessary. Personally I like having a police force, a dedicated firefighting profession, and a postal service, all of which are government monopolies (save postal, which is nonetheless very monopolistic).
[/quote]

Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies? They are, in many places. San Francisco is home to a private, armed police force which operates not unlike an insurance company. They are funded by businesses, and they actually protect the lives and property of the people who pay them, without getting sidetracked by violently arresting people for committing sins. During the wildfires, the most effective fire protection was provided by private companies who had contracted with homeowners for such just a contingency. The owners who had signed up did not have their homes burned down, as they were rapidly saturated with flame retardants. In the United State, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when ambulance services were being privatized. "People will bleed to death waiting for help!" As it turned out, the prices went down, and the speed of service and quality of equipment rose dramatically.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[jonyelmony]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1253682236' post='1971347']
I believe that is a contradiction. Insofar as the State is directly involved in an economy, there is interference backed up with violence.
[/quote]

Your right it is sorta a contradticition, but I am refering to the Governments policy to move away/stay out of trade. So if a governement decided to cut tariffs i would be happy with that. I was also trying to differentiate what the idea people should be able to conduct economic activity freely to the idea that i personally would take advantage of all those economic freedoms





[quote]
To say that State intervention is sometimes warranted is to say that a certain group of men can somehow comprehend and direct the economy, an economy which is comprised of millions of economic decisions made every second by billions of people. That is the claim that State economists make. And it is an arrogant and untenable claim.
[/quote]

You do not need to comprehend the millions of decisions that are made by billions of people, all you need is to understand the decisions which are made in a particular market.


[quote]
This whole financial mess does not come from information problems. It comes from responsibility problems. The lack of responsibility was only made possible through the abomination of central banking. The information in the market was perfectly clear. Freddie Mac and Fannie May, State chartered morgage institutions, heard this: "You [i]will [/i]make these loans to subprime borrowers." Another piece of information the banks heard loud and clear: "Here is a phenomenally low interest rate, just for you. You can loan out money to anything you want, and you don't need to cover your loans by having anything in reserve, because the State, with its inflation-funded FDIC, has got your back. No worries!" Plenty of people were sounding the alarm bell on the fact that the "boom" was just a bubble. Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Jim Rogers. These Austrian economists were laughed at. And they were entirely correct.

"Creating transparency" is among the last thing that the State should do. No institution is better at clouding up clear waters than the State. The Federal Reserve was founded, in great part, to "keep prices stable." Talk about muddying waters by obscuring price signals. Nothing is more confusing than an agency which intervenes in the market to keep all prices where they are. Price fluctuations are precisely what help manufacturers decide when to produce more and when to refrain from producing. An agency that is dedicated to stifling this process, while actually inflating the money supply and thereby bestowing more purchasing power on its vendors than the whole market, is an economy's worst enemy.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Well, while I agree that mis placed social goals and moral hazard (though i think the implicit guarantee was worht then the explicit deposit insurance considering the crises began outside the conventional banking system) influenced precipitated the crises. It does not explain how worthless financial products became very valuable, remebering they very often ended up on the books of organisations without implicit guarantees. I would be happy for governments to regulate the over the counter fincnaial products to make sure the majority of trade occurs in arenas with clear price signals, that is what i mean by transparency.


Also when a Central bank says price stability, they are not intevening to stop prices movie around, they are attempting to influence money supply so that it inflation is with in easily predictable bands so that people are informed when a price change is a real shock. Whether they are any good at this is a different debate but they are defiantly not in the business of trying to prevent real changes in price occuring.

Edited September 23, 2009 by jonyelmony

[jonyelmony]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1253684097' post='1971363']
Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies?
~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Voluntary funding for public goods allways ends up in underfunding. Everyone's incentive is to let everyone else provide funding, so while a private police force may be willing to come to your house if your house if your being robbed and willing to pay, who would give them the funds to investigate the russian mobsters up the road? Or while you have noted that houses that paid for extra private fire fighters were saved, but how many others relied on the governments fire fighters to make sure the fire was in large was contained so at to not become a threat to more houses?

Edited September 23, 2009 by jonyelmony

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='jonyelmony' date='23 September 2009 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1253686061' post='1971380']
Voluntary funding for public goods allways ends up in underfunding.[/quote]


Forgive me if I am wrong, but it appears that you are heading in a particular direction with that statement.

The end does not justify the means. If a thing can't be done without violence, does that mean that violence as a means of achieving that end is therefore justified? Consequentialism is a heresy. I know that you aren't deliberately embracing consequentialism, but I want to point out that that is where your current line of reasoning might lead.

If a good or service cannot be funded voluntarily, then the individuals who demand it really do not have a right to that good or service. When you insert coercion into a marketplace, you cease to have a marketplace. You have robbery, with some spoils leftover for their respective rightful owners.

As it stands, the statement you made is untrue. Everything, in the long run, can be considered "public goods." If I wash my hands, and thus prevent the spread of the dreaded swine flu, do I have the right to force people to compensate me for my labor in washing my hands? "Everyone" benefits, after all. Kidding (somewhat?) aside, all goods and services are consumed by individuals. Just because I do something that benefits all or most individuals in a society does not mean that I suddenly have a right to force everyone to compensate me.

I guarantee that if the State got out of the road racket, we would not be whipping donkeys to slough our carts through muddy ruts. If it is profitable to maintain a road, someone will step in to make a buck. If it is not profitable, then why have it? There is at least one stretch of road in California that is less congested, actually turns a profit, and is better maintained than State roads.

[quote]Everyone's incentive is to let everyone else provide funding, so while a private police force may be willing to come to your house if your house if your being robbed and willing to pay, who would give them the funds to investigate the russian mobsters up the road?
[/quote]

Who needs to investigate the Russian mobsters? Does your desire to have them investigated mean that you can take my money at gunpoint for that purpose? Let the people who need to have them investigated pay for it. I don't get involved in their business, and they don't get involved in mine. If they do take an interest in offering me "protection services," and do the same for enough other business owners, I think a bit of a coalition could be formed. A mob henchman isn't profitable to his capo when he's occupying a bodybag. Nor is the store they destroy in a reprisal profitable to them. That conflict would sort itself out due time, especially if their activities were, for the most part, decriminalised. As it is now, how many busts against the Russian mob has the FBI made in the past 30 years? Have they even been able to catch any of the murderers at Waco, yet? No. No, they're not very efficient in that regard. It's not due to underfunding, either. The public just doesn't demand justice.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1253684097' post='1971363']
Nihil, forgetting for a moment the moral implications of funding operations with money taken with violence or the threat of violence, let's look at the practical aspect. Why could those services (physical protection, fire protection, and correspondence carrying) not be provided by private, voluntarily-funded companies? They are, in many places. San Francisco is home to a private, armed police force which operates not unlike an insurance company. They are funded by businesses, and they actually protect the lives and property of the people who pay them, without getting sidetracked by violently arresting people for committing sins. During the wildfires, the most effective fire protection was provided by private companies who had contracted with homeowners for such just a contingency. The owners who had signed up did not have their homes burned down, as they were rapidly saturated with flame retardants. In the United State, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when ambulance services were being privatized. "People will bleed to death waiting for help!" As it turned out, the prices went down, and the speed of service and quality of equipment rose dramatically.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Show me a better system- proven better- than public funding, and I'll consider changing my mind.
What about a national military? Or do you want it to be up to businesses to protect the entire nation?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1253718036' post='1971462']
Show me a better system- proven better- than public funding, and I'll consider changing my mind.[/quote]

Why not call "public funding" what it is, instead of using the euphemism? It is money taken by force or threat of force.

My answer to the gentleman above is my answer to you, as well. With this addition: read 1 Samuel 8.

[quote]What about a national military? Or do you want it to be up to businesses to protect the entire nation?
[/quote]

That presumes that the United State military has actually protected America in the past 180 years from a real possiblity of invasion and occupation.

Of course I want individuals to provide for their own defense voluntarily! Any society which cannot defend itself without using violence or the threat of violence against non-violent people and/or enslaving them to fight for them is a society that has absolutely no moral claim to a continued existence.

Who feeds, clothes and houses an entire nation? Individuals acting in voluntary exchanges with each other. Would you say that food, clothing and housing are so important that "Surely, they cannot be left to [i]private enterprise[/i]?" I witnessed the results when the State tried to control those things. The fact that the State currently has a violent monopoly on defense services is not a proof that they are effective or that its existence is moral.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1253723015' post='1971514']
Why not call "public funding" what it is, instead of using the euphemism? It is money taken by force or threat of force.

My answer to the gentleman above is my answer to you, as well. With this addition: read 1 Samuel 8.



That presumes that the United State military has actually protected America in the past 180 years from a real possiblity of invasion and occupation.

Of course I want individuals to provide for their own defense voluntarily! Any society which cannot defend itself without using violence or the threat of violence against non-violent people and/or enslaving them to fight for them is a society that has absolutely no moral claim to a continued existence.

Who feeds, clothes and houses an entire nation? Individuals acting in voluntary exchanges with each other. Would you say that food, clothing and housing are so important that "Surely, they cannot be left to [i]private enterprise[/i]?" I witnessed the results when the State tried to control those things. The fact that the State currently has a violent monopoly on defense services is not a proof that they are effective or that its existence is moral.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So what is the role of the state? Or are you an anarchist?
By the way, I'm going to continue to call it public funding because "money taken by force or threat of force" is a totally loaded term. Is 'public funding' loaded too? Maybe. Give me a better term, a neutral term, and we'll use that.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1253726744' post='1971542']
So what is the role of the state? Or are you an anarchist?
By the way, I'm going to continue to call it public funding because "money taken by force or threat of force" is a totally loaded term. Is 'public funding' loaded too? Maybe. Give me a better term, a neutral term, and we'll use that.
[/quote]

I have to admit, I say with J.R.R. Tolkien,

"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! [[i]Editor's note: Tolkien is joking, here. Just wanted to clarify that[/i].] If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council,Winston and his gang,' it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know [i]who[/i] their master is. The medievals were only too right in taking [i]nolo episcopari[/i] ['I do not wish to be made a bishop'] as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop ...

Well, cheers and all that to you dearest son. We were born in a dark age out of due time (for us). But there is this comfort: otherwise we should not [i]know[/i], or so much love, what we do love. I imagine the fish out of water is the only fish to have an inkling of water.Also we have still small swords to use. 'I will not bow before the Iron Crown, nor cast my own small golden sceptre down.' Have at the Orcs, with winged words, hildenaeddran (war-adders), biting darts - but make sure of the mark, before shooting."





[url="http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/000725.html"]Tolkien's Letter.[/url]

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

So does that advocate...... statelessness?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1253732853' post='1971609']
So does that advocate...... statelessness?
[/quote]

I do. The State is a physical manifestation of the false idea that you have the right to initiate aggression against other people.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 23, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='23 September 2009 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1253735031' post='1971630']
I do. The State is a physical manifestation of the false idea that you have the right to initiate aggression against other people.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
So how do you wish to guarantee that basic human dignity is respected? Without some form of a State, I bet there'd be slavery. That's certainly not in keeping with Catholic ideals.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 September 2009 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1253752325' post='1971846']
So how do you wish to guarantee that basic human dignity is respected? Without some form of a State, I bet there'd be slavery. That's certainly not in keeping with Catholic ideals.
[/quote]

You are intimating that the end of "upholding human dignity" or "preventing slavery" justifies initiating aggression against innocent people. The end does not justify the means. Catholics may not believe in consequentialism.

In addition, you appear to be suggesting that the institution of the State itself has not been the worst, most destructive force working [i]against[/i] human dignity for the past 10,000 years. This is not the case. The State perennially causes more violence than it prevents.

What is the draft but slavery? My question is dead serious. As for taxation, why not just round people up and make them work in camps for four months out of every year, so they can support the State? What is the difference between that and robbing them of a third of their income, which is the direct [i]fruit[/i] of [i]their[/i] [i]labor[/i]?

Nihil Obstat, I'm going to link to some articles here. I ask you to read them all, but if you read only one, let it be this first one. It is written by Joe Sobran, who wrote for many years for the very orthodox Catholic newspaper The Wanderer. [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran267.html"]The Reluctant Anarchist, by Joseph Sobran.[/url]

And another good article on the subject: [url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html"]What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist, by Stephan Kinsella[/url]

And another good article on the subject: [url="http://mises.org/story/1855"]But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?, by Robert P. Murphy[/url]

An essay by Thomas Paine, who almost came to the full realization of what real human society is about and how it works. [url="http://mises.org/story/2897"]Society[/url]

Here is a good piece by Edmund Burke, before he was assimilated. [url="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=850&layout=html"]A Vindication of Natural Society.[/url]

The point is that society (a network of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges) is contradicted by the initiation of violence. There is a reason we call robbery, extortion, murder and rape "anti-social" behaviors. Society is voluntary. Initiating aggression is uncivilized. A society which creates a giant to hold a knife to everyone's throat, ceases, to the degree in which the individuals comprise it initiate violence, to become a society.

It is ridiculous to rob someone of his money at gunpoint, enslave him into fighting for you, then tell him it is to protect him from being robbed and enslaved.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 24, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

The State can, and has overstepped its authority throughout human history. I'm not saying it hasn't.

I will not, however, condemn the existence of a State. Jesus Christ did not, despite having ample reason to, our popes have not, and nor will I. In fact the Church has always stated that there does exist a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding political systems.

I will leave you with a few quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. After that, I invite you to clarify your stance, and then [b]I will have to ask you to, if you continue to comment, return to the subject of the OP[/b], as I am interested in discussing international trade methods, and not the legitimacy of political systems.

Thank you.



[quote]1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6[/quote]
[quote]1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and [size="5"][b]expect obedience[/b][/size] from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.[/quote]
[quote]1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22[/quote]
Note that this presupposes that the regime may indeed act.
[quote]1917 It is incumbent on those who exercise authority to strengthen the values that inspire the confidence of the members of the group and encourage them to put themselves at the service of others. Participation begins with education and culture. "One is entitled to think that the future of humanity is in the hands of those who are capable of providing the generations to come with reasons for life and optimism."34 [/quote]
Clearly exercising authority, in itself, is not to be condemned.
[quote]1919 Every human community needs an authority in order to endure and develop. [/quote]
A State can fulfill this role.
[quote] 1921 Authority is exercised legitimately if it is committed to the common good of society. To attain this it must employ morally acceptable means.

1922 The diversity of political regimes is legitimate, provided they contribute to the good of the community.

1923 Political authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and must guarantee the conditions for the exercise of freedom.[/quote]
Especially note 1923. "Political authority [...] MUST guarantee the conditions[...]." How does it enforce this guarantee?
[quote]1927 It is the role of the state to [b]defend and promote the common good[/b] of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level [/quote]


Now, as I said above, you may clarify your position. Please do not introduce any new arguments. If you wish to continue posting, I invite you to post as much as you want about international trade. That's all I have to say on the matter. While I cannot force you to do so, I would appreciate if you respect my request.