The word "free" in "free trade" just throws some people, Techdirt among them. They simply can't understand that free markets require government protection of things like contracts, agreements and, yes, intellectual property. It would be fascinating to hear how trade could go on between nations without the protection of such things.
I suppose the Techdirt types imagine everyone will just play nicely, and share.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An eclectic blog: anti-Left, ambivalent about the Right, and rabidly pro-Objectivist, this blog covers the issues of the day whatever they may be
About Me
Places to Go
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(1082)
-
▼
June
(328)
-
▼
Jun 10
(18)
- I've always liked this aspect of Lieberman.
- Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at a brisk 4690 Digg...
- Words don't mean much anymore, it would appear:"Fi...
- This should get the Ron Paulies in an uproar. But ...
- Very nice.
- If you care about global warming policies, this wi...
- Today's "duh!" moment.
- A chapter that was removed from H.G. Wells' The Ti...
- My wife just reminded me of a fortune cookie we re...
- The Diggsters show their compassion. Read the comm...
- Scrappleface on Paris Hilton. "What's bad for Pari...
- It might seem like I'm picking on Techdirt, but I'...
- The word "free" in "free trade" just throws some p...
- It's an open question as to whether our embassies ...
- A particularly effective Cox and Forkum cartoon, c...
- Here's Boing Boing breaking trust with a film prod...
- This is pretty cool. Hum that unknown tune that's ...
- It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. No...
-
▼
Jun 10
(18)
-
▼
June
(328)
3 comments:
Mark, you amuse me sometimes.
It's true that gov'ts have a role in free trade. We didn't deny that. What we did complain about wasn't the gov't role, but gov't *protectionism* which is the opposite of free trade.
What they're doing here is enforcing a monopoly. In what definition of free trade is "setting up a monopoly" considered part of free trade? You'll have a hard time finding such an answer, because it's not a part of free trade. It's the opposite of free trade.
Mike, what they're doing here is protecting American intellectual property. Your continued use of the word "protectionism" to mean something other than protecting rights, which is being done when a contract is enforced just as much as for a copyright, is unfathomable.
But, I'm not really here to debate you on these topics. I hardly think I'll convince you of anything.
I'm probably not clear in my previous comment. The word "protectionism" can be used generally, which is how I'm using it, as well as in certain specific economic contexts. In terms of international trade, the word typically means things like tarrifs, where one government attempts to limit imports and favor exports.
That use of the word has nothing to do with how Mike from Techdirt is using it here, which is only coincidentally in a free trade context. Mike uses it generally to describe what government does in extending monopolies via copyright and patents, and it this use that I'm referring to.
Government "protection" is required for free trade and free markets to exist. The only alternative is anarchy, or every individual's need to protect his own rights, in every transaction.
Post a Comment