This would be a long --- very long --- theological discussion if we take that path on this question.
How about a yes/no? Do you or do you not think that it is right for a Christian to support national policies that are in violation of the precepts of their faith? Is it or is it not legitimate for someone who follows Christ to decide that they will only follow Christ in
certain portions of their life - and that that portion marked "policy preferences" is somewhere where they do not have to?
In brief --- the world is not an ideal place and isn't going to be anytime soon. Sometimes to deal with the world, less than ideal actions must be taken.
To expect a national government to put the interests of non-citizens ahead of citizens is crazy... why have a national government then.
But here's the key point: you're looking at this as a zero-sum game. You're viewing this through the leftist perspective that there is only X amount of wealth and more for one is less for another. You know that isn't strictly true.
Er., no.
YOU are looking at this as a zero sum game. "In order for Americans to gain, others have to lose". What I am pointing out is that A) if that were the case then we should be looking to find ways to help others and B) that isn't the case, trade is a net-benefit to both sides, which is why they call it
mutually beneficial trade.
Poor countries are poor because they have bad government, inadequate education and technology and infrastructure development and so on... a poor economic system made worse by bad policy decisions in many cases.
Sort of. Poor countries are poor because they have not yet developed good government, adequate education, capital (both physical and social) etc.; Countries do not
start out wealthy and then
become poor (typically), but rather the other way 'round. Other nations around the world are in the midst of a great movement out of poverty - hundreds of millions of men, women, and children have been raised out of poverty (
real poverty, not the "poverty" that we talk about here in the U.S.) in the last few decades thanks to global trade - and you want to take that away from them and call it just? That's a horrific policy.
The answer isn't to drain America's lifeblood so they can be a parasite on us,
Who's claiming a zero sum game now?
But yeah - darn those foreigners. Little parasites, am I right? Serves them right to lose their jobs and go back to pig-farming, watching half their children die before the age of three from easily cured maladies, yeah? I hope they
do have to sell their daughters into sex slavery in order to eat - little parasitic buggers, stealing all our lifeblood in the form of working for us.... they're really like nits, you know, sucking down the blood, not giving any kind of benefit to human kind..... little parasites...
Poverty is real and its' conditions are awful. Think long and hard before you dehumanize someone in order to justify sending them back to it. Think also, perhaps, and search your heart as to why you see people working hard at something that
we asked and paid them to do as parasites. That's a mental model that has a long history - and once you begin searching through it, you may not like what you find.
taking our jobs while at the same time depending on our consumer market to buy most of the goods... do you see how fracked up that is?
International trade has been a
massive benefit to the United States of America. Taking our jobs? How in the world are they taking our jobs? Manufacturing? Posh - America is still the lead manufacturer in the world. China and Mexico didn't kill Detroit - Detroit killed Detroit. Don't believe me, go check out the Auto plants all across the South.
We're getting drained two different ways. Making everyone equally miserable is not the answer... that's what communism does.
Agreed. Making everyone profitable
is the answer. That's what free trade does.
You know what
else makes everyone equally miserable, though? Protectionism.
The answer is for them to develop their own education systems, technology, resources and economy to the betterment of their own people, not to parasite off of ours.
If we were giving them welfare, I would agree. Want to cut off international aid that goes only to enrich the governments? I'm right with you - as has been demonstrated ad nauseum, that stuff doesn't actually help anyone.
But asking them to get cut off from trade for development is asking them to become North Korea. We didn't do that, we
traded to develop ourselves - and it is both bad economics and immoral for us to try to push a punitive and destructive model on others that we were unwilling to suffer through ourselves.
I won't accept mutual starvation as the solution to world hunger.
No. You're just going to cause it where it's unnecessary.
