On the Lew Rockwell blog, Lew always says if the U.S. bans trade with a certain country, it is an attempt "to sicken and starve the Iranians/North Koreans/Cubans/(insert country here) and punish them for the actions of their government". I understand the benefits of free trade (of course) but I think that if trading with an oppressive regime strengthens that regime, it should be criminal.
For example, suppose that a large group of foreign nations said,
"Due to the massive violations of human rights committed by the U.S. government and their repeated refusal to disarm, we have instituted the following policies:
That no individual or business under our jurisdiction may accept U.S. dollars as payment for any product or service;
That no individual or business under our jurisdiction may purchase U.S. bonds or government-issued securities;
That no individual or business under our jurisdiction may supply the United States with base metals, aircraft or aircraft parts, fuels, lubricants, radioactive materials, computer components or electronic communications systems;
That any individual or business violating these policies is liable to have assets confiscated and corporate charters revoked, until such time as the United States reduces its current military expenditure to one-fourth of its current volume, and withdraws its troops from all foriegn territories."
I think that, due to the U.S. reliance on trade, such an edict would have have the effect of forcing the U.S. to make whatever concessions were demanded. But that's beside the point, because we libertarians are more concerned with the morality of an endeavor than the resulting consequences.
So is it moral for a nation to restrict trade in things that are of military value, in order to weaken an evil government?
Firstly, the people living in the banning countries are less able to trade with the United States, and their standard of living is affected. So what? Is "standard of living" more important than defending human rights? And you might also point out that the people living in the banning countries have their freedom affected; they are being told who they can and cannot trade with by threats of force. Again, so what? Does freedom mean the ability to sell weapons to war criminals?
You might point out that the people in the country targetting also have their standard of living reduced. However, they are not "sickened and starved" because nobody is being told not to supply them with food, medicine, or clothing. Who's to say that we wouldn't benefit if the government was forced to reduce its military?
I think that abolishing war will require ways to mitigate military threats that do not rely on violence. Economic sanctions have the potential to be just that, especially since international trade is more important in the 21st century than it was in, say, the 18th century. Am I wrong?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
How have sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, worked out?
How have sanctions against any tyranny worked out? Do the people subjected to the tyranny become freer? Do their lives improve? Or do sanctions only strengthen the grip of the tyrant against the people? Could it be that our political leaders want these tyrants in place?
ama gi:I think that, due to the U.S. reliance on trade, such an edict would have have the effect of forcing the U.S. to make whatever concessions were demanded.
Or, perhaps the U.S. would use its military to bring about a "change" to the situation?
Sanctions do not bring about the desired consquence unless the desired consequence is to keep the tyrant in power, his grip on the people unrestrained.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
If you trade with someone in a country abroad we do not like we will throw you in a dungeon for unspecified number of years. Throwing people in dungeons for consenting victimless acts, what could be more libertarian?
Or, perhaps the U.S. would use its military to bring about a "change" to the situation? Sanctions do not bring about the desired consquence unless the desired consequence is to keep the tyrant in power, his grip on the people unrestrained.
I'm taking it for granted that the governments sanctioning the U.S. are strong enough to not be intimidated by the U.S.
A couple of long-range missiles should do the trick.
How have sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, worked out? How have sanctions against any tyranny worked out? Do the people subjected to the tyranny become freer? Do their lives improve? Or do sanctions only strengthen the grip of the tyrant against the people? Could it be that our political leaders want these tyrants in place?
I'm definitely not in favor of any carte-blanc prohibition of travel and trade with so-called "enemy states". Just items that have military value.
For example, any American who supplies money and arms to Hamas and Hezbollah will become quite familiar with a U.S. prosecutor. Great! However, anybody who sells weapons to the Israeli military goes free and makes hundreds of billions of dollars. What's up with that?
“I think that if trading with an oppressive regime strengthens that regime, it should be criminal.”
Define oppressive regime. All governments use nonconsensual initiatory aggression. Oppression is an elastic standard to justify an embargo. Any trade can grow the tax base for an oppressive government.
Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom, said March 5, 2010: U.S. Government Confirms Sanctions Don’t Work.
“we libertarians are more concerned with the morality of an endeavor than the resulting consequences.”
There is a split in the basis for libertarianism: consequentialist libertarianism and deontological libertarianism.
“So is it moral for a nation to restrict trade in things that are of military value, in order to weaken an evil government?”
Restricting military transfers is different from restricting all trade.
“Is "standard of living" more important than defending human rights?”
If the living standard falls enough, the embargoed population can suffer to the point of death as in Iraq as noted in the Hornberger article I cited.
“Does freedom mean the ability to sell weapons to war criminals?”
A war criminal is likely to use a weapon for nonconsensual initiatory aggression which should be prevented. Stopping a criminal from likely committing another crime does not contradict libertarianism.
Selling somebody fuel so the can drive their tanks is not a victimless act. Selling somebody uranium so they can build a nuclear bomb is not a victimless act. Lending people money so thay they can hire an army is not a victimless act. Selling somebody giant cameras so they can send a spy satellite into space is not a victimless act.
Sure it is.
"Selling somebody fuel so the can drive their tanks is not a victimless act. Selling somebody uranium so they can build a nuclear bomb is not a victimless act. Lending people money so thay they can hire an army is not a victimless act. Selling somebody giant cameras so they can send a spy satellite into space is not a victimless act."
Extracting at the point of a gun, the funds required to create and maintain an agency that will enforce the ban on these selling and loaning activities, is not a victimless act.
To paraphrase Bastiat: "If goods don't cross borders, eventually, armies will."
Edit: Thanks, MatthewF.
I think there is a basic question that this thread has not addressed. Every country has two groups, the group calling the shots, let's call them the kings, and the serfs. This is of course true even in the US.
The kings, who call the shots, always have the following: 1. Plenty of money and food and guns. 2. Ability to buy their personal needs, as well as what they need to keep the serfs in line, from anywhere on the planet. 3. Independence from the wishes of the serfs. 4. Control of the media.
None of the above 4 things is changed by sanctions. The serfs, whom the kings see as so many roaches, are the ones who suffer.
Would you change anything at all, moved by pity, if your neighbor started causing suffering to the roaches in your apartment?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
What are your guys recommendations to the United States as far as what to do in order to bring about freedom in other countries? I'm not saying it's our job to nation-build by any means. But what I'm asking is, how should we inspire the people to fight back against their tyrannical governments? What's a good way of weakening a tyranny without trade restrictions? In a way, if we cut off the government's supplies, wouldn't it help the people realize that their government isn't sustainable and cannot take care of its citizens if they do not take care of themselves?
Before we can get people in other countries to overthrow their Governments, first we'll have to take care of ours.
Brian: What are your guys recommendations to the United States as far as what to do in order to bring about freedom in other countries? I'm not saying it's our job to nation-build by any means. But what I'm asking is, how should we inspire the people to fight back against their tyrannical governments? What's a good way of weakening a tyranny without trade restrictions? In a way, if we cut off the government's supplies, wouldn't it help the people realize that their government isn't sustainable and cannot take care of its citizens if they do not take care of themselves?
So you think all those people living under a tyrannical govt are in love with it, and assume it can and will take care of them?
Trade restrictions do not cut off the govt's supplies. It cuts off the serfs' supplies [see post above yours].
The best way might be by setting an example and fighting back against our own tyrannical govt's. Certainly we have a better chance of doing that than of influencing events thousands of miles away. How about if we put restrictions on our own govt, such as refusing to pay taxes, serve in their military, legitimatize them by voting, cooperate with them in any way?
Another thing we can do to help the serfs of other nations is to trade with them as much as we can, no holds barred. This will raise the standard of living of everyone there, as well as of ourselves. Let's help them in what has a chance of success, [helping the serfs economically], as opposed to what is hopeless [inciting them to rebel].
This will raise the standard of living of everyone there, as well as of ourselves
So basically if we continue trading with those countries, do you think the governments will give the people more than they already have, and from that standard of living they'll be in a better place to fight back?
How about if we put restrictions on our own govt, such as refusing to pay taxes, serve in their military, legitimatize them by voting, cooperate with them in any way?
What do you think is the best way to go about doing this, though? I can see it making sense for no one to vote if MANY people do it, but I feel like not enough people would commit to that choice, and the few votes that don't go in wouldn't really be noticed. Also, do you think seceding from the Union would help, and which state do you expect to be the first to eventually do this?
Selling a physical object that could be used for bludgeoning is not a victimless act.
This will raise the standard of living of everyone there, as well as of ourselves So basically if we continue trading with those countries, do you think the governments will give the people more than they already have, and from that standard of living they'll be in a better place to fight back? How about if we put restrictions on our own govt, such as refusing to pay taxes, serve in their military, legitimatize them by voting, cooperate with them in any way? What do you think is the best way to go about doing this, though? I can see it making sense for no one to vote if MANY people do it, but I feel like not enough people would commit to that choice, and the few votes that don't go in wouldn't really be noticed. Also, do you think seceding from the Union would help, and which state do you expect to be the first to eventually do this?
I'll have to go with what what said earlier and go with "set a good example."
My parents were immigrants from a commuist country. So are many of my friends' family members. Just remember in which direction people were jumping over the Berlin wall. ;) People want a good life for themselves, their friends, and their family. They'll go to places where they can get that.
Brian: So basically if we continue trading with those countries, do you think the governments will give the people more than they already have, and from that standard of living they'll be in a better place to fight back? I live in a strange neighborhood. Some nights I hear shouting and crying and such from houses nearby. Some poor woman is getting a beating from her drunken husband probably. I feel awful about it, but what can I do? That's my atitude to other countries. It's their problem, mainly because I am helpless to do anything about it. I suspect the whole idea of helping oppressed people in another country originated with the military, who needed an excuse to invade the place. How about if we put restrictions on our own govt, such as refusing to pay taxes, serve in their military, legitimatize them by voting, cooperate with them in any way? What do you think is the best way to go about doing this, though? I can see it making sense for no one to vote if MANY people do it, but I feel like not enough people would commit to that choice, and the few votes that don't go in wouldn't really be noticed. So if most people in your area were, say, devil worshippers or sex offenders, you would go along because what's the point of only one man desisting? I think the best way is what we are doing right now, spreading the word, educating as many people as we can. Also, do you think seceding from the Union would help, and which state do you expect to be the first to eventually do this? I'm sure it would. Any weakening of centralized control is good almost by definition. My guess is Texas will be first, if anyone, maybe followed by the old Confederacy.
I live in a strange neighborhood. Some nights I hear shouting and crying and such from houses nearby. Some poor woman is getting a beating from her drunken husband probably. I feel awful about it, but what can I do?
That's my atitude to other countries. It's their problem, mainly because I am helpless to do anything about it.
I suspect the whole idea of helping oppressed people in another country originated with the military, who needed an excuse to invade the place.
What do you think is the best way to go about doing this, though? I can see it making sense for no one to vote if MANY people do it, but I feel like not enough people would commit to that choice, and the few votes that don't go in wouldn't really be noticed.
So if most people in your area were, say, devil worshippers or sex offenders, you would go along because what's the point of only one man desisting?
I think the best way is what we are doing right now, spreading the word, educating as many people as we can.
Also, do you think seceding from the Union would help, and which state do you expect to be the first to eventually do this?
No, but if I simply did not pay taxes, the IRS can 'legally' arrest me. Isn't there a better fight to be made out of prison?
Some poor woman is getting a beating from her drunken husband probably. I feel awful about it, but what can I do?
I definitely understand where you're coming from, but to keep trading with the husband seems like a much more direct action. You hear him beating his wife and don't do anything about it, but how would it feel if you own a store down the neighborhood and he comes in to buy a sandwich from you? I wouldn't want to do business with him at all. And if he realizes that nobody in the neighorhood will sell him food/etc., wouldn't his only choice be to move or to stop doing what he's doing?
Brian: So if most people in your area were, say, devil worshippers or sex offenders, you would go along because what's the point of only one man desisting? No, but if I simply did not pay taxes, the IRS can 'legally' arrest me. Isn't there a better fight to be made out of prison? I agree with that. I was talking about voting. Some poor woman is getting a beating from her drunken husband probably. I feel awful about it, but what can I do? I definitely understand where you're coming from, but to keep trading with the husband seems like a much more direct action. You hear him beating his wife and don't do anything about it, but how would it feel if you own a store down the neighborhood and he comes in to buy a sandwich from you? I wouldn't want to do business with him at all. And if he realizes that nobody in the neighorhood will sell him food/etc., wouldn't his only choice be to move or to stop doing what he's doing? Yes, that would be a good idea. But of course, if I made sure no food got into his house, so that his wife and children suffered [on top of the beatings], while he was able to get into his car and drive to the next county to feed himself, it would not be a good idea. Trade restrictions punish the serfs, not the kings.
I agree with that. I was talking about voting.
Yes, that would be a good idea. But of course, if I made sure no food got into his house, so that his wife and children suffered [on top of the beatings], while he was able to get into his car and drive to the next county to feed himself, it would not be a good idea.
Trade restrictions punish the serfs, not the kings.
I think that the best thing that we can do for these countries is to trade with them. Trade can expose them to liberalism and the importance of free market. Unfortunately the trade is far to regulated to do as muich good as it could do. The less involved the US government is with overseas trade, the better the oppressed countries will become.
Obviously, selling, or giving, somebody a wooden stick is not a crime under normal circumstances. However, selling somebody a stick after you see them beat somebody up with a stick should be a crime.
I want somebody to answer the Israeli/Palestinian subject I brought up. The U.S. government forbids Americans from supplying money and arms to the Hamas and Hezbollah, ostensibly because they kill civilians and violate human rights, but does not criminalize sending weapons to the Israeli government, which also kills civilians and violates human rights. Obviously, there is some inconsistency there. Should the government open up the floodgates to Hamas/Hezbollah? Or should it restrict money and arms to the Israeli government?
U.S. defense industries supply most of Israel's weapons. That supply of weapons would disappear with a simple act of Congress.
A second, and completely hypothetical question. Suppose you were unanimously elected President of the human race. Suppose that a powerful nation, such as China or the United States launched a genicidal invasion against a much smaller, weaker country. How would you deal with that?
a) raise taxes and send troops and military forces to repel the invaders
b) order foreign countries to restrict trade with the aggressive state, particularly to deprive them of fuel, computer systems, military supplies, and--most importantly--access to credit markets
c) something else I haven't thought of
Sound off.
ama gi,
Do you have a theory of law? Or are laws "just obvious"?
ama gi: However, selling somebody a stick after you see them beat somebody up with a stick should be a crime.
What if the person receiving the beating was attacking the stick swinger's wife and children?
ama gi: Should the government open up the floodgates to Hamas/Hezbollah? Or should it restrict money and arms to the Israeli government
It should do neither. It should exit the situation completely.
ami gi: U.S. defense industries supply most of Israel's weapons. That supply of weapons would disappear with a simple act of Congress.
How would Congress benefit from passing such an act? Members of Congress rely on the defense industry, and all other major industries, for campaign funds and political support. The Congress would never consider such and act.
ami gi: Suppose you were unanimously elected President of the human race.
Can you bring the question down to Earth? The answer, though, is "C".
Compare North Korea and Cuba to China and Vietnam. We trade with the latter two, but not with the former two. The latter two are freer than the former two. Why? Because free trade allows ideas to move with the goods that are being traded.
Political Atheists Blog
Plus there is less siege mentality and spite.