Protectionism vs Racism, continued

In his comment on my most recent post, Rob hints at an issue I feel I should have addressed in my post.

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.

Is Protectionism Worse Than Racism?

This Steve Landsburg post got me thinking about the above question (note: I have not read the column the said post is based on). I think if you were to ask a random sampling of (reasonable) Americans if racism was "bad", they would almost all say yes. On the other hand, if you were to ask the same sample if protectionism was "bad", I wouldn't be surprised if it was split down the middle, or even in favor of "no". So why is this?

As Landsburg points, racism and protectionism are simply two forms of discrimination; one is based on, well, race, and the other regional affiliation. Now Landsburg claims that his analogy isn't perfect because protectionism by necessity forces itself to act on another. I don't think this is true as I believe one needs to clarify the setting in which the policy is practiced. For instance, if I was a regular person who happened to be a protectionist to the extreme, I would buy a parcel of land in Montana and fend for myself beholden to no one. If I was the same person, but a racist to, say black people, I would attempt to find a community where no black people would ever be found. I could see if Landsburg was making an opportunity cost argument about protectionism (my withdrawal from society takes my skills from society and thus forces more people to take up more of a burden, as well as takes away any potential benefits I may have provided), but I didn't get the impression that was what he was referring to. Besides, one could probably make a very similar argument about the effects of racial discrimination.

But I think the real issue at hand is it worse for government to be protectionist or racist. As government has a monopoly over the use of force, its actions in the area of discrimination are far more powerful than any private entity.

(Yes, I know if an influential CEO is a protectionist or racist he is going to affect a significant number of people with his discriminatory policies, but in his case it would be a trade-off as he would be enduring the cost of significantly limiting the size of his potential resource pool. Government faces no such cost).

So, is it worse for government to implement racist policies or protectionist policies?

It's a moot question in my opinion. Both are stupid policies, and both are immoral policies. I don't believe either provide any benefits (except to certain special interests, but that's a topic for another day).

Yet that brings us back to our second and third questions. Why would a majority of people say racism is a bad thing, but protectionism not? Is there a discernible difference between the two that makes one worse than the other?

My guess is that is a combination of our [American] view of American History as well economic ignorance.

Leftism and Arrogance

One of the most repulsive characteristics of the modern Left movement is the level of arrogance it consistently employs. Leftism is inherently arrogant due to its central philosophical tenet: central planning. Yet there are times when this arrogance permeates into aspects of our lives that should never be touched.

Jimmy Carter's, Maureen Dowd's, and Eugene Robinson's comments over the past couple of weeks reminded me of a passage in Clarence Thomas' memoir My Grandfather's Son concerning Thomas' ardous journey of being appointed to the Court of Appeals:

As I reflected on the long, unpleasant process that had led up to this brief public performance, I was struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights. It was as ludicrous as a well-fed man lecturing a starving person about his insensitivity to world hunger (p. 202).

Carter claims to know what the millions of Americans are truly thinking when they oppose Obama's anti-liberty policies. A significant number of them are without a doubt racists. Dowd asserts Rep. Joe Wilson, a man whom she has never met or most likely never heard of, knows who Joe Wilson is based on his idiotic screaming at the president. And Robinson, a black man, knows what's best for all black people. What that is he never really says, but he still knows.

Who do they think they are that they can exclaim such ridiculous notions? How is this arrogant, condescending excuse for a way of thinking appealing to anyone besides the most pompous and disillusioned of individuals?