What is your opinion on Free Trade Zones.
Who thinks it is worthwhile establishing those kind of zones in more Countries. And more interesting, who of you would (actively) engage into establishing such a zone in a random country.
I have read a little about these zones and maybe need to read more but from what I understand these zones often result in the exploitation of labor and the local governments for the benifit of the capitalist’s. I would not support such zones for I beleive the less government involvement in the economy is the best way to stimulate economic growth.
So you are against economic growth?
I don’t believe in free trade zones. I simply believe in free trade. That means no special “zone” needs to be established in order to trade. There should be zero restrictions on all trade between people no matter where they live.
No I’m not against growth but if that is the excepted standard for growth then I would have to say no to the free trade zones which some would think that is a no for growth. From what I have learned these free trade zones exploit labor and local government at the exspense of the populace as a whole.
I have to agree. Free Trade only works when all of the partners are free to trade.
Most “free trade agreements” are corporate subsidies, if you read the fine print. For example, a geographic area is exempted from sales taxes. People who already own land or businesses in that area are the beneficiary of a government subsidy.
The only way to implement “free trade” is to have no regulations or taxes at all. I’m forced to “purchase” services from the government whether I want to or now. It’s silly to talk about free trade when people are forced to purchase government agains their will.
I don’t see, how this would be against “free trade zones” at all. You just want the zone to be bigger (global, universal, if you want).
Assuming that free trade is a good goal, wouldn’t free trade zones be a good start to convince the skeptics?
You are now talking about examples that carry the label free trade zones, which may be a misnomer. I’m talking about the concept as such and I am looking at it as a way to facilitate social and political change from very restrictive regimes towards one with less government control.
What you write is also embedded in the articles.
… I’m sure there are some free trade zones facing that problems. But I think one should also look at the potential this may have for many countries with restrictive regimes.
A good question to a libertarian is: Assume that Country X is a restrictive, protectionist, welfare state that errected a free trade zone in one of it’s coastal areas, while the rest country remains as is for now. Would you move to that zone or would you chose to stay in the restrictive area?
Of course free trade, without any trade barriers are the best thing. However there is lots of trade barriers everywere, so if one tradebarrier somewhere between some people is knocked down its a good thing. The only thing worse than a trade barrier with holes in it, is trade barriers without any holes in it at all. Its like taxes, ofcourse a world without taxes is best. Should we be against tax cuts for some people, because taxes themselves are wrong? Ofcourse not, any tax cuts are good, and any lowering of tariffs are good. We cant knock over all the trade barriers at once, for all, everywhere, we have to knock one trade barrier down at a time. We have to make holes in trade barriers one shot at a time.
Cheers
This is done for well politically connected individuals at the expense of everybody else. These FTZ sound like crony capitalism; it sounds like tax and regulation benefits, not tax and regulation cuts.
“This is done for well politically connected individuals at the expense of everybody else. These FTZ sound like crony capitalism; it sounds like tax and regulation benefits, not tax and regulation cuts.”
Even if that was true. It still think it would be a good thing. If you and i are lucky enough to be able to trade with eachother, without trade barriers (because we are politicall connected or something), both of us gain, but noone else will suffer. Trade is not a zero sum game. Trade is always mutually benifitial, it has to be because both parties of a trade agree to it voluntarily. There is no such thing as forced trade (that would be stealing, and that already illegal). So a trade means that both of us value the thing we got more than the thing we gave away. The trade only affects us, noone else get effected. So our gain, is not anyone elses pain. This is not just theory, its logic. Trade barriers kills marginal trade between people, some of the value is lost in trading because of the barriers.. and marginal trade that would have been mutually benifitial never happens.This is a sad state of affairs as it kills value, it makes society poorer. The less trade that get killed like this the better. So saying that no other people should be allowed to free trade because i cant, is close to being jealous. Its like a bucket full of crabs. When one crab is about to climb out of the bucket, the rest of the crabs pull him back in. In the end no crab manages to escape.
Cheers
Having government to put a huge burden in everybody else but you, and paying you out of everybody else’s work, is a good way to create a monopoly. If that’s not enough, they’ll daunt you with regulation to deny you deals and even entrance. I guess it’s still better than if that activity was banned for all. That doesn’t make it any less true that you’re having success because everybody else is being pushed down though.
You can not be for Government Managed Trade if you are for private property rights. Individuals in free, prosperous and efficient societies have the right to exchange their property with others, and should have the open right to do this with people in other nations. A “Free Trade Zone” is a creation of government and enforced with violence as others outside the zone might want to do the same kinds of things but is prohibited from doing so.
Remember Ross Perot, He was against a broader NAFTA because of imaginary job loss but very much for the Free Trade Zone where his son was doing business.
There is no such thing as a Government Sponsored Free Trade Zone. There is free trade and behavior managed by government violence. There is no continuum between liberty and slavery or between free trade and behavior modification.
Yes no individual should have his wage taxed by the govt, or have to pay a tariff to the govt for the imported products he buys. The fact of the matter is that the govt taxes every wage, and it takes a tariff of every imported product he buys. Every wage is taxed, and every imported product is tariffed. This is clearly a violation of an individuals property rights. So what can we do about it? Well, we can vote for loweer taxes and lower tariffs. Managed trade agreements lower the tariffs between two countries. Before they probably had their standard general WTO compliant trade barriers up against eachother. Say 8% on all products. Afterwards they have on average, say a 5% tariff on all products. It might be higher for some products and lower for some.. but on the whole its a lowering of tariffs. If it wasnt, then the countries would not trade threw the country specific managed trade agreements but threw the old standard WTO trade agreements.
You see, managed trade agreements is allot like lowering of taxes, its still wrong but its less wrong than before.
Cheers
You’re missing the point of “market anarchism”. Voting doesn’t work; the election system is defective. All forms of taxation are theft, and cannot be justified by any amount of voting. Agorism is the only resistance strategy that isn’t a waste of time.
The bad guys aren’t going to voluntarily give up their power to leech off the productivity of everyone else.
I placed the thread on free trade zones merely as showing a possible stepping stone between regulative/exploitative state and a social order that may be less regulative/exploitative. i.E. as a means of demonstrating that less intervention is better.
If “Free Trade Zones” are a success, they will most likely be used to show that government is necessary for “free trade”, not that less intervention is better.
If one were to establish a true free trade zone, it will most likely have to be underground or black market, and governments would want to wipe it out, regardless of its success, or especially because of its success.
Market anarchism, is civil war.
Anarcho-capitalism is just another idealistic fantasy that can not work. Just like the communist fantasies could not work, neither can the anarcho-capitalist ones. They simply do not take human nature into account.
I’ll spell it out again, no laws are respected without an authority. There are no rights without someone with the power to physically enforce them. Anyone with power to enforce laws, has the power to also create laws. Anyone with the power to enforce law, needs a monopoly on violence to be able to do so. Competition in the area of violence is civil war.
Eventually the meanest bully, or just the bully with the largest posse, will have competed their competitors off the market (aka killed them), or split the market between them (split the land into smaller countries). Their will, whatever it may be, will be the law of the land. The laws will be respected out of fear. However once there is a monopoly on violence, there is laws, police and peace. When there is peace people can trade, when people trade they grow wealthy, when people are wealthy they can bribe the authority to get more freedoms and eventually change the system to be less oppressive. The authority (with its monopoly on violence) will grow less oppressive, as it does not want to bite the hand that feeds it. It does not take all the wealth of the people, because that would be bleeding them dead. It just makes lots of small cuts, to keep them good and healthy cash cows.
Imagine what would happen there was lots of competing law systems out there, and different police forces running around enforcing conflicting laws, for its customers. What would happen if a customer of one group killed a customer of another group, it might be considered a crime according to one law system but not the other. Even if it would have been considered a crime in both groups, the fact is that the killer and the victim belonged to different protections groups. And the killers protection group would have no reason to punish him as he had not killed one of their own customers.
Anarcho-capitalism would lead into civil war.. just as surely as communism leads into authoritarianism.
Cheers
Statism is intellectual cowardice.
Minarchism is just another idealistic fantasy that cannot work, as it’s socialism on a small scale. Ditto with statism. They simply do not take human nature into account.
Non sequitur, plus it violates the basic laws of economics.
And just how will they do that?
Golly gee! [:O] Imagine that! Imagine if there were lots of competing law systems out there! Oh wait…
[8-)]
Indeed - hence minarchism will lead to socialism.
-Jon
Communism doesn’t work, but not for the reasons you gave. The USA is actually a communist country! If you carefully read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to the present USA, you’ll see that the USA is, essentially, communist!