Should we "engage" or "disengage"?
Don't you just love the term "engagement" when it is used in the context of US relations with the world? It is hopelessly obscure and deliberately so. We are told that there are those who want to "engage" the world and those who want to "disengage" from the world.
Thus says the Economist: So many foreigners are down on the US that polls reveal that we are wondering "What's the point...of engaging with such people?... Many Americans wish to disengage from the world in one or more of four ways: by fighting fewer wars, by trading less freely, by allowing fewer foreigners into their country or by giving less foreign aid."
Now, this is just strange language and a crazy mix of radically different behaviors. Let's reduce this to the level of a single neighborhood to see just how strange. The Smiths live next to the Joneses. The Smiths are beginning to think that they should disengage from the Joneses. For example, the Smiths might stop breaking into the Jones' house and ransacking the place. They might stop loaning and borrowing sugar. They might stop inviting them to dinner. And they might stop robbing others and putting the loot in the Jones' mailbox.
These odd behaviors are proxies for war, trade, immigration, and foreign aid. Why is it not obvious that these are really four different things that are not well described under the general heading of "engagement"? I might want to engage my local supermarket by buying groceries. I do not want to engage it by bombing the building. I might invite the cashier to have a cup of coffee at my home. But I would not want the cashier to drain my bank account without permission. If two of these behaviors are objectionable, why should the remaining two be considered objectionable as well?
This conflation of trade-war-immigration-aid under the general heading of engagement seems to be accepted by nearly everyone besides (true blue) libertarians. Free traders at National Review are also the first to whip it up for war, while protectionists of left and right tend to doubt the merits of war (exceptions are already coming to mind, but the tendency is real) and immigration. The advocates of foreign aid invaribly describe the "backlash" against it as growing "isolationism," as if it represents some sort of pathology to not want one's bank account raided to prop up foreign despots.
It really is a mystery why people have such a hard time understanding that peace and free trade go together. Same with war and protection. The immigration issue is in another category that involves other complicated issues about the uses of tax dollars and the privileges of citizenship. Makes you want to sing that old Sesame Street song: "One of these things, doesn't belong here..."
Comments (18)
At the risk of sounding off base, a war against a country that has no freedoms and who is accountable to gain benefit from taking away the freedoms of others is a lot different than a roman conquest, simply to get the booty and freebies from other peoples or to expand the tax base or the industrial military complex. After all, the whole notion behind natural law government is that people orgainze into a central power structure to secure their rights.
I think history has shown that when there exist nations that have almost no freedom, it invariably evolves into a serious threat for nations that do.
Published: February 13, 2006 11:50 PM
David,
I differ with you on what is behind the notion of natural law. In my view it is where the laws of the land ensure ethical behavior of everyone. That is, it prevents encroachments on property. This includes the prevention of theft in the form of taxation by a privileged minority and also all forms of coercive monopolization of markets. Central government is the antithesis to this concept.
"I think history has shown that when there exist nations that have almost no freedom, it invariably evolves into a serious threat for nations that do."
This is one of many reasons why Americans should begin to get very possessive about the liberties that their leaders wish to take away from them in the name of public good and safety. As Washington chips away at our freedoms, it proceeds to become an even more serious threat to other nations of the world.
Published: February 14, 2006 12:29 AM
@ David C. One can not speak about "a country that has no freedoms" because without a context this has no meaning. Even a dictatorship has its purpose because if it would not be beter then the alternative people would free themselves from it. No king can lead where no-one follows.
There are two forces in every society: (1) The iron fist of centralized and concentrated command and control and the drive towards a simple predictable system with fewer independent agents. (2) The drive towards clay like flexibility and adaptation to new opportunities which require increasingly more freedom and the devolving of centralized command structures into many little independent agents creating unpredictable complex networks.
Freedom and decentralisation/devolving of power go hand in hand. Concentration and centralisation of power always results in loss of freedom. This is a natural law. Efficiency is in many ways the enemy of freedom.
What is power? As long as that superpower is defined in our ability to murder, kill and destroy we will just continue on this path we are on. Only when we learn that true superpower is our ability to organize, teach, create and empower will we understand how foolish and expensive wars are.
Not every population is ready to become a democratic society. It's also not the best solution for every population. For democratic values to exist and survive most of the basics like water, food and shelter have to be available in abundance. One also requires an interested, literate population with a open, hopeful and scientific view on the world. Without all this, one can not have (nor accept) discussions about different points of view.
Anarchy is worse then dictatorship and one can not eat or drink freedom. Uneducated, illiterate, poor people which have no leisure time are unable to form or even accept a democratic organisation of their society.
Every population will develop the most optimal government in response to both inside developments and outside forces. Democracies are inherently weak because they require so much more of their people. The natural tendency of every form of government is to become a simple and efficient hierarchical aristocracy. So a population which values its freedom must make sure that more and more people become beter educated and are able to act as independent agents in complex networks.
Published: February 14, 2006 1:41 AM
"... peace and free trade go together."
I am not so sure about the accuracy of this statement. I think throughout history nations whose citizens are trading with each other have nonetheless gone to war. US citizens were buying Iraqi oil even as the bombs rained down. Once the Shi'ites have slaughtered all the Sunnis in their beds, we'll be buying Iraqi oil again.
It is also true that Western businesses have not hesitated to enlist their more powerful governments to quash any provincialism in a weaker nation that might shut down a trade route or threaten an investment.
Published: February 14, 2006 8:27 AM
On Iraq, the war began with cruel sanctions 10 years before the bombs began falling on cities. On imperialist nations that use the military to protect investments, the point is granted. But when trade goes both directions, violence is less likely. Think of all the interest groups that have favored some kind of war with China over the last 15 years; it has been stopped due to economic pressure.
Published: February 14, 2006 8:31 AM
Re: "peace and free trade go together."
I am not so sure about the accuracy of this statement.
I think a better way of saying it is that peace and free trade are basically the same thing. Or that free trade is one form of peaceful behavior.
Trade is inherently cooperative, mutually beneficial, and necessarily presupposes a basic respect for each others' person and property.
The fact that other people have, at other times, decided instead to enrich themselves at the expense of others, resorting to violence to achieve a short-term gain, thus violating these basic ideas of mutual respect has nothing to do with the fact that free trade and peace are so closely related to one another.
Published: February 14, 2006 9:09 AM
"Trade ... necessarily presupposes a basic respect for each others' person and property."
This part is way too flowery for me as well. Criminals often engage in voluntary trade: the thug goes into a convenience store, sees that they're equipped with closed circuit cameras, and instead of reaching for his gun, reaches for his wallet. You're trying to prove too much by the fact that people engage in voluntary trade.
Published: February 14, 2006 9:46 AM
I don't understand what you mean by "flowery." I can be flowery when I am trying to be flowery, but here, I am being as literal as I can be. I am saying that one of the prerequisites for trade is a respect for each other.
By "respect" I mean both the attitude (i.e., the mental state), but more importantly I mean the behavior -- the act of respect (i.e., a behavioral manifestation of that intent in the form of refraining from aggression).
When the "criminal" you mention walks into the store but buys something instead of robbing it, why exactly is he a criminal? Nothing in his behavior, in your example, is a crime. (What I suspect you mean is that this person has a history of other criminal behavior.)
This is the point of Mr. Tucker's post -- the behaviors of trading and the behaviors of war (and "aid") are fundamentally different. When a "criminal" engages in voluntary trade, he is, at that time, peaceful. When he is engaging in criminal behavior, that is not peaceful. He may be the same person the entire time, but the economist is concerned with his behavior, some of which may be peaceful, some of which may not.
Economics, particularly Austrian economics, is the science of behavior (i.e., praxeology). Intent is not really the province of the economist. I'm not saying that it's not important or a worthy subject of study, but that study is something other than economics.
Once again, the fact that some people may exhibit both forms of behavior (peaceful vs. criminal) at different times has nothing to do with the fact that trade is a form of (i.e., an example of) peaceful behavior.
Published: February 14, 2006 10:02 AM
You said that trade "necessarily presupposes a basic respect" when, as is often the case, voluntary trade simply means a financial reckoning that it is the cheaper of two options, the other one being involuntary exchange.
Published: February 14, 2006 12:09 PM
as is often the case, voluntary trade simply means a financial reckoning that it is the cheaper of two options, the other one being involuntary exchange
What do you mean by "financial reckoning" and how does it differ from ordinary trade?
When do you mean when you say that trade is "cheaper" than involuntary exchanges? (As an initial matter, involuntary behavior doesn't involve an "exchange." That's why it's involuntary: one typically does all the giving and the other does all the getting.)
And cheaper for whom? Do you mean cheaper overall, when you factor in both parties? If so, that's what I was saying when I mentioned that trade is "mutually beneficial." If both parties gain, then the net result for the transaction could not possibly be "cheaper" -- it didn't cost anything; it increased the overall wealth.
Or do you mean cheaper for one and not the other?
Published: February 14, 2006 12:35 PM
The thug who engages in voluntary exchange may do so because the cost to him of engaging in involuntary exchange is higher than in voluntary exchange. It does not mean that he "respects" the other's person or property. Similarly, the drug dealer and the addict do not "respect" each other's person or property.
New Orleans is an example of involuntary exchange promptly becoming the order of the day in a locale where voluntary exchange had previously been the norm. If trade were based on mutual respect, the mere absence of police should not have changed the equation from trade to looting.
Published: February 14, 2006 1:42 PM
The thug who engages in voluntary exchange may do so because the cost to him of engaging in involuntary exchange is higher than in voluntary exchange. It does not mean that he "respects" the other's person or property.
Oh, I see what you were saying. Yes, that's why the penalties for crimes (and other wrongs) exceed the value of the thing stolen: to make the crime so much less attractive that it (partially) compensates for the risk of not getting caught.
But that penalty is not a cost of that transaction per se. Punishment is a second, external transaction which we try to internalize into the first one, in order to discourage crime.
But, as I said, what I meant by "respect" was not so much about the mental state or attitude, but the act of respect -- a behavioral form of respect, more a matter of action than intent. That's the focus of economics, after all.
I still do not understand why you are having trouble accepting the proposition that trade is a form of peaceful behavior.
Similarly, the drug dealer and the addict do not "respect" each other's person or property.
Sure, they do. What else would it be?
Published: February 14, 2006 3:05 PM
New Orleans is an example of involuntary exchange promptly becoming the order of the day in a locale where voluntary exchange had previously been the norm. If trade were based on mutual respect, the mere absence of police should not have changed the equation from trade to looting.
The New Orleans situation happens to be very important to me. I lived there for many years, got married there. To see it fall victim to so many layers of governmental negligence breaks my heart.
The reason that it descended into rampant crime and theft and vandalism (more than usual, at least) is that the bourgoisie had fled -- the group of people who spend their time being productive and constructive, engaged in peaceful forms of behavior (i.e., business).
What was left over after the exodus of the bourgoisie were many people who, for multiple generations, have been unproductive, idle, destructive, antisocial criminals, who since childhood have not known any other way of life. Never having learned how to behave in a way that is economically productive, mutually beneficial and cooperative, they simply, in the absence of sanctions, increased their rate of well-known criminal behavior.
This culture of violence has been grossly exacerbated by 70 years of government subsidies that have been handed out for the apparent purpose of promoting idleness among these people, in exchange for votes for politicians who then turn around and forcibly extract these monies from the productive people I mentioned earlier.
It is terribly unfortunate that, in the poorest, most criminally-infested subcultures, the mindset is that the solution to their poverty and crime is to be found in still more government (and not even in the form of more effective punishment for the criminals, but rather in the form of increased subsidies). It is unfortunate because the subsidies are just another form of violence -- forcibly extracting money from people, in the form of taxes, to give it to someone else, in "exchange" as you put it for nothing. Their habitual dependence on government has made, and will continue to make them, poorer and more prone to violence.
The true solution to these infestations of poverty and crime is for these groups to learn to emulate the bourgoisie (whom they openly despise and resent and tax), by learning the beneficial, nearly miraculous transformative power of peaceful trade. Their tolerance for crime (and socialist government) would wane rapidly.
Published: February 14, 2006 3:26 PM
George:
I am not saying voluntary trade is not peaceful. I am saying that respect for another's person or property is not the sine qua non for free trade. The New Orleans example hammers the point home. People there will apparently only refrain from involuntary exchange at gunpoint. Remove the threat of defensive force and they promptly resort to looting.
In a similar vein, the drug dealer does not respect the addict's person or property. In fact, the dealer's product destroys the addict's person or property. Likewise, the addict would prefer to steal the dealer's drugs rather than pay for them if circumstances allowed.
Published: February 14, 2006 6:38 PM
In a similar vein, the drug dealer does not respect the addict's person or property.
How on earth can you know that? Granted, in today's world, where being a drug dealer is a "crime", it's quite likely that drug dealers actually are criminals (in the sense that they commit real crimes, not the made-up crime of dealing drugs), so it's probably true; but it's not inherent in being a drug dealer. It was equally true of alcohol dealers during Prohibition.
Published: February 15, 2006 12:29 AM
"In a similar vein, the drug dealer does not respect the addict's person or property."
And when a person is suffering chronic pain and would like to take his chances with pain relief from marijuana, who shows the greater respect, the dealer, or the wise and powerful authority who will save this soul from sin and pain relief?
In any event, I’ll take the free market, with respect or not, over the state’s coercion.
The cute thing is this: how long would it take respectful pharmaceutical company lobbyists to get marijuana removed from Washington’s “sin� list, if these companies could cartelize the production and distribution of this newly discovered pain reliever? As quick as you can spell “campaign contributions�.
Published: February 15, 2006 2:14 PM
Paul:
Do you seriously think a crack dealer has any respect for a crackhead's person or property?
Fraud is present in many voluntary exchanges too. The idea that free trade "necessarily presupposes" mutual respect is just naive.
Published: February 16, 2006 4:03 PM
Fraud is present in many voluntary exchanges too.
Most libertarians agree that fraud is also a form of coercion. Therefore, where fraud is present, a voluntary exchange has not actually taken place--it just seems to have.
Published: February 16, 2006 7:17 PM