 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Why the Left (which includes Libertarians) had to demonize Imperialism |
|||
|
Ah for the good old days of the British Empire, when a large part of the world was exposed to the Bible and freedom! Sure, British colonial policy had its flaws, and those flaws were particularly noticeable to Americans who knew well just how completely Bible ideas limit government. But to the rest of England's colonies, the touch of British imperialism brought great advances in food production, medicine, education, and liberty. But here's why the Left had to demonize imperialism. When Britain colonized a region, she not only sent businessmen and soldiers, she also sent Christian missionaries. Britain's strategy, which was simply motivated by the Christian duty to spread the Gospel, was uniquely successful for a reason most historians miss. By winning converts to Christianity, Britain created a segment of the native population that accepted the moral ideas on which the British political and economic philosophy was based. Although Britain initially "harmonized" trade between the colonies and the mother country - forcing the colonies to export raw materials and import British manufactures - the high point of the empire did not come about until after Britain enacted a policy of complete free trade in the mid 19th century. This policy produced great wealth both at home and in the colonies, because everyone was able to produce what they were best at, what economists call the principle of comparative advantage. Looking back on the British example, modern policy wonks forget that what was essential to Britain's success was not free trade alone, but having large numbers of the native population that understood and accepted the Bible ideas on which free markets are based. Principal among these are the idea of personal accountability, rights to property, including property in one's labor, freedom of contract, and honesty. All of these rights flow from the prohibitions of God's moral rules - don't steal, don't lie, etc. In our dealings with China, the voices crying loudest for complete free trade are those of Libertarians. This is because the only moral rule that Libertarians recognize in human interaction is consent. As long as two adults agree to something - a contract for suicide, prostitution, pornography, or drugs, for example - Libertarians believe the law must not interfere. They thus view trade restrictions as evil, about the only evil they recognize! But the Founders explicitly gave Congress the power to enact trade restrictions for a reason. The Founders knew that trade restrictions hurt the nation that imposes them, but they also recognized that free trade, by itself, is not sufficient to guarantee that a trade partner will limit its government and respect individual rights. It is true that free trade creates wealth, and if this wealth is allowed to pass to those who are not members of the government, it can become a weapon to oppose government. Milton Friedman says that capital is the only weapon that can oppose government. But Friedman also says that dissent is impossible in a socialist country, because, by definition, the productive resources are controlled by the government. You could be a billionaire in Communist China, but that does not mean you would be allowed to exercise your free speech rights. The printing presses are still controlled by the government. Even if socialist controls are relaxed and private individuals are allowed to control significant resources, there is no assurance that a nation will adopt the Judeo-Christian moral principles on which real freedom depends. It could become a Libertarian country, recognizing property rights unbounded by any moral constraints. Libertarianism is incompatible with the idea of rights that can't be granted away even if the individual consents, like the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In a Libertarian country you can agree to star in a snuff film or sell yourself into slavery or prostitution. As you might expect, the immorality of a Libertarian nation eventually leads to gangsterism and tyranny, just as it does in a Communist country. The U.S. ought to take a lesson out of its own history in dealing with China. When the U.S. "colonized" its western territory, it not only sent settlers intent on turning a profit, it also sent the cavalry, and in the case of the Northwest Ordinance, it sent Christian missionaries at public expense. In short, it followed the British imperial model. We can't send troops to China, of course, but we could require that China lift its ban on private Christian missionaries as a condition of access to our markets. This minimal condition, well within the power of Congress to enact, would benefit both the China and U.S. companies trying to do business there. China did not adopt contract law - the idea of non-simultaneous exchanges enforceable at law - until the late 1970s. Consequently, U.S. companies have lost billions when their Chinese partners have changed the terms of their deals in mid stream. The market will discipline this type of practice in the long run, but if even top Chinese business and government officials can't be trusted, it is certain there are honesty problems in the Chinese population in general that the market will have difficulty stopping. If these problems result in the growth of gangsters and a large black market, China could end up just like Russia. Allowing missionaries to enter and work freely in China would serve the U.S. just as it served the British. It would help to create a segment of the native population that accepted the moral ideas on which not only free markets, but also free government is based. |
|
||
|