Comment: I only used arguments of economic efficiency

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: i read hazlitt and other (see in situ)

I only used arguments of economic efficiency

to refute your statement that countries should not trade with underdeveloped countries which don't have equivalent environmental regulations or working conditions.

The quote from Hazlitt was used to hint at more broad fallacies of the same sort as those of the economic kind. That's why I subsequently went on to demonstrate how PRISM is not a good argument for protectionism - which seemed to be your motive for your post titled, "Is PRISM an argument for Protectionism?" In that part - the meat of my post - I used no arguments based on economics.

You wasted much of your long-winded reply bemoaning arguments based on economic efficiency as to avoid confronting that your (in your own words) "Concrete Example" was riddled with shortsightedness.

Further, arguments of economic efficiency are much more broadly valid that arguments for protectionism. You gave two very very narrow examples. One was that nations at war don't trade with each other. Even in that case, war is the one of the most aggressive types of protectionism - especially offensive war. Thus, economics can be used to argue against war as well - ie the broken window fallacy. The second example you gave is conditional and not absolutely true. States may or may not trade with such organizations - even perhaps due to economic efficiency. This realization narrows your argument even further.

As well, your examples do not necessarily hold when contrasted with history. From Rothbard's Anatomy of the State:

Parts of international law were originally purely private, growing out of the need of merchants and traders everywhere to protect their property and adjudicate disputes. Examples are admiralty law and the law merchant. But even the governmental rules emerged voluntarily and were not imposed by any international super-State. The object of the “laws of war” was to limit inter-State destruction to the State apparatus itself, thereby preserving the innocent “civilian” public from the slaughter and devastation of war. The object of the development of neutrals’ rights was to preserve private civilian international commerce, even with “enemy” countries, from seizure by one of the warring parties.

[emphasis added]

Moving on. From your response:

countries with immature industries that want to become industrial powers have always used protection in order to foster their young industries. this is true england, america, democratic germany and japan post ww2, and modern capitalist china.

Protectionism in the US was began by Abraham Lincoln. Protectionist tariffs to protect northern manufacturers from cheaper European goods spurred the Civil War. It worked out really well - only ~600,000 Americans died. Your words, "history trumps theory."

Another statement of yours:

economics can never determine whether or not having x or y national industry is of higher value than having unlimited free trade. that is a moral or value judgement every person has to make for themselves.

[emphasis added]

Finally, you agree with me. How can "every person" make that judgement for themselves without acting through the market. As I have pointed out before, even democratically elected governments don't represent everyone - only the people that voted for them. Thus, the government acting is not equivalent to "every person" making the judgement for themselves.

Addressing the blather that follows, I agree that the market cannot be anthropomorphized. The market has no feelings. However, the market still punishes poor economic decisions. Hence the collapse of the USSR or the housing bubble collapse of 2008 or the Roman monetary debacle perpetrated by Diocletian or ... It just happens to turn out that socialism (and other types of governments based on socialistic policies) do get punished by the market eventually.

we don't have the right of verbal imperialism

I'm checking my list of inalienable rights... just a minute... just a minute... Yep! There it is the freedom of speech - to say whatever I please.

your utopian moral notion that nations should not exist on moral grounds, is a valid opinion. but it does not impact the practical reality of the moment. if you ever achieve a world that actually reflects your moral demands of humanity, then the world will be able to abandon all use of physical force under any circumstances. law will be unnecessary, everyone will be in inherently good and altruistic.

My opinion is certainly impacting the practical reality of the moment under the condition that it has influence. Assuming such influence, those people that have their minds changed will put us that much closer to actually reducing the size of government. If slavery still existed (in the traditional sense), I would be for abrupt, absolute abolition. However, some people of that time thought that abolition should have been gradual. If advocating absolute abolition of the government results in some amount of government rollback, I would be tickled pink.

Further, I do not believe in altruism. True altruism is impossible - that is, to put every other human above oneself. Everyone acts for personal satisfaction. Good parents support their children because it gives them personal satisfaction to see them do good. If the parents gained no satisfaction when the kids did good, they would care less.

The reason I support anarchism is not because I think man is perfectible. I support it because I realize that man is not perfectible. To the contrary, man is corruptible and should never be trusted with a monopoly on force over an entire people.

while the real world persists, realistic people will have varied and nuanced positions on issues like national borders, immigration, trade, military policy, the value of social welfare programs, etc.

I have opinions on all those things as well. You are being unrealistic to think otherwise.