is free trade capitalism the only ethical path to developmen

[Terminus Alpha]

And why did they get addicted? Because they chose to buy. Its their fault for making that choice not the british.

Even though you may be able to justify the British forcing China to open their ports, you cannot justify the fact that the British, instead of trying to negotiate with the Qing Dynasty, invaded it outright and then pillaged, burned, and looted everything they could find. The sheer amount of war crimes that the soldiers committed in their process of "liberation" removes any so-called "higher moral ground" (as a previous person approximately said) that you can claim for the UK on the subject of the Opium Wars.

The Brits did try to negotiate. The Chinese said "we don't want your stuff" and then the Brits got mad and started up a drug dealing operation.

Opium addiction became as serious problem around the time of the Opium Wars and the government was in the right to ban the sale.

The Brits didn't like their profits being under-cut, and proceeded to force China to "open" it's ports.

And why did they get addicted? Because they chose to buy. Its their fault for making that choice not the british.

Brits shouldn't have sold in the first place. Drug dealing isn't ethical.

Also, nice victim blaming. It's that attitude of "Just say no" that escalated the War on Drugs to it's current expensive excess.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Again putting forward the idea of international government.

[Povinksi]

What does this have to do with ethical development?

Probably something along the lines of "restricting freedoms are unethical, and restricting capitalism is restricting economical freedom" ...

What if a business restricts somebody else's freedom? Or what if a business hurts somebody?

[Caracasus]

Probably something along the lines of "restricting freedoms are unethical, and restricting capitalism is restricting economical freedom" ...

What if a business restricts somebody else's freedom? Or what if a business hurts somebody?

Nah, if it's private enterprise restricting people's freedoms, or hurting people for profit it's fine. If it's the government restricting people's freedoms for what they see as the greater good it's evil tyranny. C'mon mate, keep up!

[Nuevo Sealandia]

No. Trade barriers are there for good reasons. The topic poster talked about the importance of free trade - if it IS so important (I agree that it is), for what good reason can't it be used against a rogue nation, like Russia or Iran? I realize that sounds kind of evil, but free trade is a self-perpetuating idea (hence the collapse of the USSR and the capitalismification of China, and the creation of a world with no true communist nations), and it has been discovered that it can survive with a certain level of restriction (the poached elephant ivory and whaling bans). Thus the restriction of free trade corrupts it in no sense of the word - in fact, most would agree that it's a better market without whale blubber and elephant tusks for sale everywhere. Trade restrictions are a tool, although assuredly one to be used wisely, and thus there is no good reason why bans of certain items and tariffs are a bad idea. The British-Chinese opium wars are some of the most blatantly imperialistic atrocities in early modern history, and were in no way justified by any hazy notions of "expanding the British economic sphere."

[Tekeristan]

" Oh no! We're being oppressed by governments who don't want their citizens to have access to dangerous drugs and items, who protect domestic industries with tariffs, and communism is evil! "


Sorry. I just had to do that.

[Knokkeheist]

Which fails to work.

only because the cheka didn't work hard enough

The what?

[Kubra]

only because the cheka didn't work hard enough

The what?

The security organization that preceeded the GPU, which was a branch of the NKVD. In simpler terms, the guys in charge of red terror.
Uhhh, at this point I should admit I'm being facetious.

[Nikolausstadt]

Well, with the reasoning the OP gave about Free Trade, we could just go back to colonialism in the meantime and bring #Freedom and Capitali$m™.

Don't they look happy?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well, with the reasoning the OP gave about Free Trade, we could just go back to colonialism in the meantime and bring #Freedom and Capitali$m™.

Don't they look happy?

(Image)

Because we all know colonialism was an excellent system that had no drawbacks whatsoever.
Also, where was that picture taken?

[Risottia]

Tarifs are a perfectly legitimate way of protecting a nation's economy and workers from dumping.

[Atomic Utopia]

I support capitalism and free trade as the best of many bad options, but I also believe that the government needs the ability to correct for externalities and thus prevent market failure. To put it cery simply, not all trades are just between buyer and seller, many involve someone else who benifits or is harmed indirectly. This harm or benifit could be in the form of pollution (coal), lower crime rates (education) or many other things.

To compensate for this hidden cost or benifit some outside entity must alter the market, taxing coal plants more or providing education free for example. Such things, rather than blocking the process of capitalism make it better and more efficient. Capitalism needs some regulations else it will become a misdirected morass loaded with sub optimal outcomes. Capitalism is wonderful; it works, but it cannot compensate for externalities on it's own.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Tarifs are a perfectly legitimate way of protecting a nation's economy and workers from dumping.

But what is a nation's economy in a globalizing world?

[Imperial Valaran]

Tarifs are a perfectly legitimate way of protecting a nation's economy and workers from dumping.

I'd feel that only has a fairly limited use in practice though (mostly in regards to some 'aid' to Africa, and the external blowback from the EU's CAP). Aside from that area, tariffs aren't so useful.

[Kilobugya]

No, it's totally unethical (more exactly, a-ethical, it doesn't care the slightest about ethics, which of course ends up massively violating them), and it's not even a path to development, but more to instability and downward spirals.

[Jute]

Well, it did work in Spain for some time until they were invaded

Although that was mostly rub by anarchists and socialists rather than Communists

They were anarchic / free communists.

[Jute]

Probably something along the lines of "restricting freedoms are unethical, and restricting capitalism is restricting economical freedom" ...

What if a business restricts somebody else's freedom? Or what if a business hurts somebody?

Things that capitalism advocates tend to dismiss or ignore?

[Kraslavia]

Free and unrestricted trade between free and unrestriceted collective owned cooperative companies is capitalism or communism?

[Knokkeheist]

The what?

The security organization that preceeded the GPU, which was a branch of the NKVD. In simpler terms, the guys in charge of red terror.
Uhhh, at this point I should admit I'm being facetious.

So you support tyranny?

[Kubra]

The security organization that preceeded the GPU, which was a branch of the NKVD. In simpler terms, the guys in charge of red terror.
Uhhh, at this point I should admit I'm being facetious.

So you support tyranny?

oh definitely, so long as it's against people I don't like.

[Knokkeheist]

So you support tyranny?

oh definitely, so long as it's against people I don't like.

That you should be locked up in a cage to see how that is like.

[Kubra]

oh definitely, so long as it's against people I don't like.

That you should be locked up in a cage to see how that is like.

oh whoa you seem to support tyranny. Even worse, against myself! Why, you ought to be shipped to a gulag, to see what that's like.

[Knokkeheist]

That you should be locked up in a cage to see how that is like.

oh whoa you seem to support tyranny. Even worse, against myself! Why, you ought to be shipped to a gulag, to see what that's like.

I don't support it i support freedom and capitalism unlike you you support communims and red terror.

[Hollorous]

The what?

The security organization that preceeded the GPU, which was a branch of the NKVD. In simpler terms, the guys in charge of red terror.
Uhhh, at this point I should admit I'm being facetious.

Well, the cheka's red terror managed to outdo the white terror.

That was hard work.

[Jute]

oh whoa you seem to support tyranny. Even worse, against myself! Why, you ought to be shipped to a gulag, to see what that's like.

I don't support it i support freedom and capitalism unlike you you support communims and red terror.

Capitalism isn't exactly always making people "free" either, it's often leading to things like employee-exploitation or wage slavery, to the point where some people have to work three jobs just to make a living. That isn't really "freedom". China also is a rather unfree nation, and yet has capitalism. So capitalism doesn't have to mean "freedom" at all.
Likewise, libertarian/free communism exists, which has no tyrannical institutions whatsoever. No central government, no huge exploitative corporations.
(Sidenote: I don't consider myself to be a direct adherent to libertarian communism, but I wanted to remind you that it does exist.)