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!