What is the Most Unfair Trade?

The term "Fair Trade" continues to see frequent usage by my acquaintances, friends, church family, and in various media that I consume. It has even been repeatedly mentioned in various Lenten materials. Thus, I have found myself considering the concept--and the surrounding actions and (oft-unspoken) philosophies--with greater frequency and depth.

The term itself is often an attempt at neologistic rebellion against another term: "free trade." (Linguists may find evidence of other origins, as well, but I am not claiming to know the origin, but only a common understanding and usage context.) In that sense, it is meant as a foil to the commonly stated failures of what people (often mis-)understand to be "free trade."

Some of the areas of concern that are purported to be positively affected by fair trade include: affluence of either transacting party; impact upon shared natural resources; and seller, buyer, or end-customer ignorance. While these are all important areas of a transaction for involved parties to consider, they are not the only aspects of fairness regarding a trade, and--I argue--not even the most important aspects.

I assert that coercion--whether by fraud or threat of force--makes for the least fair trade. Coercion treats one party not like a person, but like a lesser animal, targeting that person's baser instincts through manipulation, rather than dealing with him or her as an ethical, reasoning, being. The coerced party's subjective evaluation of the worth of the goods or services being exchanged is hampered by incorrect information (with fraud) or by artificially heightened concerns for survival (with force).

The coerced party is unfairly, inhumanely influenced. How, then, can the trader properly weigh concerns such as those purported, even, to be solved by fair trade, let alone other concerns of person and property? Obviously a seller cannot seek affluence if the buyer is threatening bodily harm or death. Likewise, how can a buyer take shared resource concerns into consideration, if the associated details are being misrepresented? It is obvious that buyer, seller, and end-consumer education can be foiled by fraud, as well.

Consider a proposed transaction wherein the potential buyer is unfairly treated due to both fraud and threats of force: the buyer is deceived about how the profits from the transaction will be used, and is threatened with theft, bodily harm, imprisonment, and finally death, if (s)he will not participate in the transaction. Would you even remotely consider that a fair trade? No, it is the most unfair trade of all, if it can even be considered a trade!

Imagine this "seller" also does poorly in the areas of concern, or "improvement areas" that fair trade hopes to address. Shared resource concerns are violated, as this "seller" makes claims to most--if not all--natural resources, and is also the worst polluter of the environment! The "seller" focuses mainly on the affluence of friends, contacts, and employees, rather than the wealth of the buyers. The "seller" is not wholly interested in education of the end-consumer, nor of the buyer, because buyer and consumer ignorance aids in the "seller"'s ability to retain money and power.

In summary, this hypothetical "seller" uses force, fraud, and violates the tenets of both free and fair trade. Deception and threats are used to sell goods that the "seller" could normally not sell; and theft, harm, imprisonment, and, ultimately, killing are employed when buyers will not trade on the "seller"'s terms.

Much like a thief, raider, or con artist, it is hard to even consider this party a seller, or any type of true trader at all.

Have you guessed who this "seller" is? I will give you a hint: coerced transactions are not referred to as "sales," but "licenses," "tariffs," "fees," "tolls," and "taxes."

This unfair, unfree party, is, of course, the State.

So why, then, are so many staunch advocates of fair trade also promoters of the most unfair tradesman of all? Many of these advocates even support the State as an arbiter of fair trade. The irony is palpable and saddening.

If you care about fairness in trade, do not support one of its greatest transgressors!

Spooner and NOTA

My wife and I were discussing the possibility of purchasing used copies of Lysander Spooner works, (such as the Reader) and I was expressing lament over the prohibitive costs of some of the ones in better condition. This (somewhat) inevitably led to a discussion of the the significance and substance of his writings, so as to explain to her what their value is to me, in order to make a better judgment on whether or not to purchase.

This conversation turned to the concept of non-voting (of which I am ever more convinced, with she being slightly less far along that path). She came up with the idea of a "None of the Above" t-shirt, and later, bumper sticker. I was going to make a plea for the blogosphere to design one, but it appears Cafe Press already has a large selection.

I have ordered one. My only complaint is that all the visually best designs limited the shirt by restricting color or by mentioning year, party, office, etc. Nevertheless, I chose an excellent 2008 design, and hope it will arrive soon.

As far as the Lysander decision goes, I found this bibliography on lysanderspooner.org, which has many of the texts for free.

Dark Knight

I saw the Dark Knight late last night with two circles of friends. The movie was amazing for a multitude of reasons, including phenomenal performances, amazing picture & sound, and posing excellent questions.

I am going to need to see it at least several more times to detail all of the different situational ethics and various other questions that arise during the movie, but I am quite impressed.

Two of my friends were annoyed with what they thought was the only question presented during the movie: "Am I willing to hurt someone else to make things better for myself (or others)." They saw that as a recurring theme but little else. I wonder if this is because they are both strongly collectivist and socialist, and therefore used to thinking and advocating that it is OK to sacrifice a person for the benefit of other(s).

A Letter to My Pastor

[Pastor],

I just wanted to drop a few comments and questions for you as you are preparing for your upcoming sermon on whether Christians can faithfully serve in the government. This is a follow-up to some of the comments [other member] had in church. (reader's note: the other member had been discussing this incident and another similar incident, and had mentioned that if Peace Churches continue become more involved in governments, they may lose their "exemptions" that allow them not to take oaths, allow them to be Conscientious Objectors, etc.)

This topic is something I have dealt with a number of times while considering my worldview. For a long time, I had a number of questions I pondered, generally along the lines of the following:

"What personal obligations would I have as an agent of the state that might conflict with my personal spirituality, ethics, and morality?"

Basically, what I was trying to determine was whether or not being an agent of the State meant that I would be assisting in committing violence against citizens, immigrants, or foreigners. This was especially worrisome for me if it meant I might be assisting in committing violence not just to stop or prevent other violence, but in order to protect one group's preferences over another's (such as laws regarding consensual adult sexuality, recreational drug use, etc.). I also pondered frequently the idea of how to incorporate the concepts of rehabilitation and reconciliation into a system that is focused on restitution and retribution.

So what of culpability then: might I be? I think different answers might be argued depending on the particulars of the specific employment. But, I started to believe that there was a presuppositional question that might make the above line of questioning moot, depending on the answer.

That question took the following general format:

"Can someone who is a pacifist accept a salary that is paid for via extortion, backed by theft and violence?"

What I had previously been wrestling with was whether or not I could "do good" as a government employee, but what I started to realize was if the mere act of being an employee itself was against my principles, it would not matter. If my position depended upon violence being done to those who did not comply with paying for my salary, could I ever claim to be truly "doing good?"

A larger possible implication of the answer applies to what funds the church will accept, as well. If a pacifist personally should not accept funds obtained through extortion, can a Christian community of pacifists accept "public money" for projects, either?

Perhaps these are questions that you have already been considering, but if not, I hope it will add more context to the topic.

Peace,
[me]

Customer Service from the State?

My wife was recently listening to the audio version of The Five Languages of Apology.

The authors were comparing two examples of customer service wherein the level of professionalism, treatment of the customer, and apologetic behavior for poor service made a big difference for the customer. The two institutions noted were the United States Postal Service and a bank. Correctly, my wife realized that the reason the bank employee treated the customer better is that the bank's ability to make money and stay in business depends on satisfying its customers!

To add to her thoughts:

The United States Postal Service, however, has the built-in advantage of having allies that will steal from you, imprison you, or kill you if refuse to pay to keep them in business!

That's right, working for the state means never having to say "I'm sorry."

Electoral Politics

I have been ruminating much lately regarding the topic of voting. For one, I have been trying to decide whether or not I should vote, even in primaries and the like. Many Anabaptists have historically refused to hold public office or vote, based on the Two Kingdoms theology represented in articles IV and VI of the Schleitheim Confession, though my experience indicates that perhaps such a stance is on the decline. Many libertarians and anarchists have also argued that voting is immoral, such as several Strike the Root columnists and Wendy McElroy.

One specific I have been pondering is the minimal-to-nonexistent intersection between the qualifications required to be elected and the qualifications required in order to perform effectively once in office. The only immediate commonality that comes to mind is the special ability to repeatedly convince people of something that is obviously untrue. That, of course, is not even an admirable skill, even though it may be a remarkable one.

With the current U.S. presidential election underway, I have been reminded of something that I started to recognize during previous elections: through all the media I have heard or seen, I have yet to witness someone voice their support for an "electable" candidate and back it up by agreeing with specific policy or platform items espoused by the candidate. In the very best cases that I have observed, a supporter will reference such vague things as "change," "helping working people," "better economy," or "better healthcare," and the like.

Combine this with the fact that the winner of the last U.S. election only took roughly 20% of the citizenship's vote, and I cannot help but wonder how many people actually agree with a candidate's stated platforms (not even considering the disparities between stated platform and actual intent). Could it be less than 1%?

And yet, out of these tiny percentages of the population that support the actual programs that politicians advocated, they often envision a "mandate from the masses," or sometimes, "a mandate from God."

It boggles the mind.

Background Information

To help you better understand my arguments and beliefs, I present the following basic premises:

• It is wrong to initiate violence or fraud against a person or that person's legitimate property.
• At the minimum, a person ought to aid others when the cost and danger of doing so would be trivial.
  
• There is a God, and Jesus is the most humanly-knowable revelation of Him.
  

My posts and comments should all fall under this basic moral, ethical, and spiritual framework. This should help make sure that we do not "argue past" one another through the course of discussion. I do, however, reserve the right to modify these statements for clarity.