April 17, 2003

Why Free Nations Don't Fight

There is a reason why nations with free trade, free markets, a free press and representative governments do not go to war against each other. Here is an example of why that is. Since there is relatively free trade between France and the US, the amount of trade is fairly large and makes up a good proportion of the Frence economy (and not an insignificant proportion of the US economy - Michelin for example is huge, and it's not alone).

When we are annoyed at the French, we switch away from their products to alternatives from other places. Because of this, the French wine growers (and soon, no doubt, tire makers and others) put pressure on the French government to shape up. Eventually, this pressure will grow to the point that the French government will change its behavior. (Rest assured, if the US starts to suffer because of French actions against us, we'll put pressure on our government, too.)

Free trade gives people a personal reason to care about the opinions of other nations. Free markets give them a way to act on their concerns against other nations. A free press gives people the information they need to know when and how to act. Representative government allows the people to change the government's behavior to correct imbalances and irritations. Thus is peace maintained.

Fascism denies all of these mechanisms, as for that matter do communism and most other kinds of dictatorship. Government interference in these mechanisms tends to dampen correcting influences, and to that extent makes wars more likely. This is one reason why France swung so dangerously away from the US, and will take a long time to swing back, and it is why it is dangerous that the EU is looking to be so unrepresentative. With the markets heavily regulated and subsidized, the feedback mechanism is slow for France. With the EU policies being subject to the bureaucrats, rather than voters, the response mechanism will be very, very weak.

Posted by Jeff at April 17, 2003 09:42 AM | Link Cosmos
Comments

The same free market allows me to choose to not buy from The Dixie Chicks, Barbra Streisand and Martin Sheen (well, Sheen is such a pacifist that he protested Clinton - so at least he's consistent). Al Gore seems to think differently though. He put it this way: "They (The Dixie Chicks) were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit. Our best protection is free and open debate."

Al Gore is confusing the free market with the US government. The First Amendment does not guarantee economic well-being, it guarantees that the US government will not interfere with speech. The Dixie Chicks were not interfered with by the government - they made their speech and no one arrested them or interfered with that speech. However, the Dixie Chicks have no entitlement to my money, in the past, present or future. If I choose to not buy their records because they insult the President, that's my right in a free market. For a supposedly bright guy, Al Gore sure doesn't get the First Amendment, does he?

Well, this was going to be a quick response, but, I had to do a good rambling-Jeff imitation :)

(For the sake of full disclosure: I've never bought a Dixie Chick record - but that's because I don't like country music. The only Streisand movie I've ever seen is "What's Up Doc?", but I don't plan on buying any of her things any time soon. I do, however, really enjoy "The West Wing" - though Sorkin's "A Few Good Men" is much better.)

Posted by: Mark L on April 17, 2003 08:26 PM

Al Gore is confusing the free market with the US government.
Still.

Posted by: Jeff on April 17, 2003 08:42 PM
Post a comment