Retribution not enough

David Honig honig at sprynet.com
Sat Oct 20 14:49:53 PDT 2001


At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>> > The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand
>> > globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and
>> > narrowing diplomatic choices.  In the short term, and we have no idea
what
>>
>>When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by
government
>>to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
>
>Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these 
>"voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected.  

So?  Everyone *everywhere* is 'affected' by everyone elses' decisions.
Everything
you consume or make affects the global supply:demand and therefore price.


>In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be 
>exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese).  The long-term 
>effects of globalization are as yet unknown.

The effects of unfree localized trade are well known: regular folks
see higher prices.  Even if trade is global but unfree, they see
artificial tariffs.  To say nothing of the peasant who can't *choose*
a better job in a factory because of unfree trade.

>>You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is
>>an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists
>>would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.

Additionally, free trade leads to (purely voluntary, emergent) optimization.
(If I can make X or Y, but you can make X but not Y cheaper, I'll make Y
and you make X.)

No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job.
No one forces industrial folks to seek service jobs.  Its economics
and psychology.

>Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is 
>still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by 
>globalization will find it has been in their best interests.

Guess what: in a free society, no one is in charge of optimizing happiness.
Well, each individual is responsible for their own.  Since others can't
tell what makes each individual happy, this is again optimal.

\begin{asbestos}
In a centrally-ruled (statist) society some elites decide what *should* 
make *others* happy.  And forces everyone to pay for it.
Not only doomed in reality, but immoral.
\end{}





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list