When we talk about state-compelled racism or protectionism (versus individual passive or aggressive stances), it is necessary to point out that the structure of the modern state lends itself very easily to international protectionist policy. This is not the case for state-compelled racism. For though it can be easily be mandated domestically (see slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc...), internationally it simply falls under the category of xenophobic protectionism. I don't know if Rob was arguing from this angle, but if he was, I find this argument more compelling than if it were to come from the individual passive or aggressive view. On the state level, comparing racism and protectionism as I was was a bit of an apples to oranges argument.
That being said, I have trouble buying Rob's externality argument. He is more or less advocating sanctions. I don't think this is sound trade policy and am not aware of many instances in history where growth and progress were the direct result of economic sanctions. My study of history, especially of 20th century history, has led me to believe that the more one opens one's borders the better off country will be in the long run.
But aside from us haggling over the economics, does Rob's argument suggesting that if Country A refuses to trade with Country B because A thinks B's domestic policies are reprehensible, they are doing the morally conscionable thing, hold water?
I don't know, but I think it's an interesting take. I'm going to mull it over for a bit and see what I can come up with.
No comments:
Post a Comment