ALSO VIOLATE AMERICANS' RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN FREE TRADE
opponents of international free trade, laborite, luddite and nativist
alike, have absolutely, positively, no right whatsoever to forcibly
prevent American and foreign businessmen who wish to engage in
mutually agreeable international trade from doing so.
like warfare statists, invariably resort to the Orwellian vocabulary
of collectivism. They can be counted on to invoke the "w"
word, "we" and the "o" word, "our."
"We" must protect "our" industries, for the
sake of "our" national interest, as if "our"
national interest could ever be other than the individual interests
of millions of sovereign and independent American citizens.
operate under a mighty peculiar set of unexamined assumptions
. They seem to imagine that just because an American businessman
is a fellow American that somehow the businessman owes the protectionist
some sort of special consideration, beyond refraining from violating
the protectionist's life, liberty and property. Protectionists
seem to imagine merely because they are American citizens that
private American businesses, which are the private property of
other private American citizens, are somehow "our" industries.
me, but the assumption that "we're all in this together"
and therefore owe each some vague, undefined obligation beyond
refraining from violating each others' individual rights, is the
central premise of communism, fascism, democratic socialism and
welfare statism. It is most certainly NOT the guiding premise
which inspired our Founding Fathers to wage the American Revolution.
the protectionist owns shares of stock in the company in question,
the company is not "our" company, it is somebody else's'
company. Merely being a citizen of the same country does not give
one the right to dictate how someone else disposes of his economic
what if the protectionist is an employee of the company in question?
Doesn't he have therefore a say in whether "his" company
moves its plants or outsources its labor overseas? Doesn't he
have a "right" to "his" job?
he does not. Not unless he owns shares in the company and can
persuade a majority of shareholders to keep him on. What the company
owes him is wages or a salary. What he owes the company is his
manual or mental labor.
employee's relationship to the company he works for is morally
and ethically no different from that between the protectionist's
neighborhood barber and himself. His barber cuts the protectionist's
hair. The protectionist pays the barber for services rendered.
End of story. Just as the protectionist has no obligation to patronize
the same barber in perpetuity, so the protectionist's employer
has no obligation to employ the protectionist in perpetuity.
an American citizen does not mean that other Americans' bank accounts
are the common property of "all Americans," welfare
parasites to the contrary notwithstanding. By the same token,
being an American citizen does not mean that other Americans'
private property, in the form of business enterprises such as
traditional manufacturing plants, can be suddenly reclassified
as the common property of all Americans.
is not to equate honest, hardworking blue collar workers in sunset
industries with welfare parasites. Absolutely not. It is merely
to remind protectionists of the fundamental distinction between
capitalism and communism. Laissez faire capitalists know that
not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such
thing as an iron ricebowl either. Both Maoist China and Japan,
Inc. found that out, the hard way. The most one can do is delay
the inevitable day of reckoning.
economic reformer Zhu Rongi caught on to this fact about twenty
years ago, and was subjected to Maoist thought reform for talking
about it. Apparently many otherwise intelligent mainstream American
intellectuals, including some ostensibly on the capitalist right,
still haven't figured it out.
STATISTS VIOLATE AMERICANS' INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
case that was painful, there's more.
warfare statists like Republican Congressman Chris Cox of California
routinely prattle on about restricting the export of "American
technology" and "American industrial secrets."
me Chris, but unless the technology in question was developed
as socialized science in government laboratories, by scientists
and engineers on the federal payroll, the way Nazi scientists
developed German weapons technology for the Third Reich, they
are not "American technology" or "American industrial
secrets," not in the sense you and your ilk mean it. They
are not public property, and ought not to be disposed of at the
whims of paranoid politicians and beltway bureaucrats.
any scientific breakthroughs or technological innovations made
by Boeing, Hughes, Loral, Lucent and McDonnell Douglas are PRIVATE
property. They are the PRIVATE intellectual property of PRIVATE
individuals who work for or own shares of Boeing, Hughes, IBM,
Loral, Lucent and McDonnell Douglas. What Boeing, Hughes, IBM,
Loral, Lucent and McDonnell Douglas choose to do with their PRIVATE
intellectual property is properly their PRIVATE decision.
Hughes, IBM, Loral, Lucent and McDonnell Douglas must be able
to sell their high tech products to recoup their immense R&D
costs. If they don't recoup their R&D costs, they lose money.
If they lose money they declare Chapter Eleven. If America's high
tech companies declare Chapter Eleven, high tech companies on
foreign nations will replace them in the global marketplace. If
foreign high tech companies replace them, America will lose its
ABOUT "NATIONAL SECURITY?"
about "national security?"
bedrock precondition of a free economy, hence a wealthy nation,
hence a strong national defense, is the sanctity of private property.
Private property makes possible private enterprise. Private enterprise
make possible immense wealth. Immense wealth makes possible America's
military weaponry is immensely costly. Only extravagantly wealthy
nations like America can afford extravagantly expensive weapons
such as supercarriers and state of the art air superiority fighters
like the F-22.
private property means no private enterprise, means no immense
wealth, means no superpower status. The former Soviet Union learned
this lesson the hard way. The former Soviet Union is now a former
superpower. This is merely one of many reasons why the threshold
for government abrogation of private property rights must be set
want to be a superpatriot? You want a strong national defense?
You want America to remain a superpower into the 21st century?
Then keep your eye on the bottom line and remember, "It's
the economy, stupid!"