Replies

Personally, I lean towards the "Free Trade" position here, simply because I don't like the Government telling a private citizen with whom he can and cannot do business based upon the Government's desire to effect "regime change" in the potential trading partner. To take an example from a couple of decades ago: I don't much care if Ferdinand Marcos is a Crook who oppresses his own people so that his wife can add a few thousand more exotic shoes to her private collection; it should be the private businessman's own personal decision whether or not to sell his soul to Satan by trading-for-profit with such a tyrant. Whether that "free trade" reinforces Marcos' power base or degrades it (which would partially depend on whether the businessman is trading with the Regime or with the Local Market, imho) should be of little concern to the US Government; the Government does not have the Right to dictate terms to a US businessman as to the "moral caliber" of the trading partners with whom he trades, or to attempt to use his trading operations to effect political goals.

It's an attempt at Foreign Social Engineering by indirect means. Desirable? Quite possibly, but not the Government's job.

Rather, the Government's job is the defense of the Person, property, and rights of the Citizens against aggression by Foreign Powers. As such, Trade Sanctions should (IMHO) not be imposed for any "regime-change" or "protectionistic" or "social engineering" basis -- but simply according to the question, "Does this country intend to attack and kill our citizens?" Ergo, when China threatens Los Angeles with ICBMs, we slap trade sanctions on them as a Hostile Power. If and When they retract the threat (preferably with an apology), we then restore them to Neutral Power trading arrangements -- whether that is a low, single-rate tariff or whatever. 100% Free Trade, of course, we should reserve for our genuine Friends... not because 100% Free Trade is a bad economic idea; No, 100% Free Trade is a great economic idea.

Which is precisely why 100% Free Trade should be reserved for those nations which have a proven record of zero hostile intent towards the US for at least several decades... since Free Trade is enormously profitable to both partners, it doesn;t hurt to be prudently circumspect about the possibility that we might be helping a potential enemy make enormous profits (even if it is to our mutual benefit, which Free Trade is).

"I don't much care if Ferdinand Marcos is a Crook who oppresses his own people so that his wife can add a few thousand more exotic shoes to her private collection; it should be the private businessman's own personal decision whether or not to sell his soul to Satan by trading-for-profit with such a tyrant."

Yes, the check on the "bad" behavior should be the press that reports lists of all the businesses trading with Satan. (And customers who subsequently stop buying products from those companies.)

I'd go even further, though...even in a totalitarian regime, the commerce can't all go through the government.

For example, the U.S. has a ban on travel to Cuba. Well, it's not a ban on travel, but it's a limit on money spent. Not only is such a restriction offensive to me, from a personal liberty standpoint (how dare the U.S. government tell me where I may or may not travel!)...but it's hard to imagine that all of what I would spend would get to Castro.

I just read Ayn Rand's (1960's?) Playboy interview a few days ago. She said that the way to bring down the Soviet Union would be an economic embargo. But such an embargo really doesn't fit with her (libertarian) philosophy that government's only legitimate purpose is to protect from violence or fraud. In an economic embargo, the State is basically telling its citizens who they can or can not trade with.

I wonder, if Ms. Rand were alive today, whether she wouldn't have changed her mind on that.

Gotta go...

"...but simply according to the question, "Does this country intend to attack and kill our citizens?""

Oops. I should have read further before responding!

How do you have any idea whether "this country (sic..."countries" don't attack, government's do) intends to attack and kill our citizens"?

The fact that China has ICBMs...even if they are targeted on the U.S., doesn't mean they "intend to attack and kill our citizens."

We and the Soviet Union/Russia had/have ICBMs targeted at each other. They weren't used.

How do you determine intent?