Thursday, December 14, 2017

One of the Greatest Mysteries of the Modern Era of Political Economic Commentary?



By Walter Block

Pat Buchanan is like the little girl with the curl; when she was good, she was awfully good; when she was bad, she was horrid.

Here he is on foreign policy: What Should We Fight For. This is no less than magnificent. The essay is surely up to the standards of Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and all other hard-core libertarians who consistently utilize our theory, even in this realm, unlike some beltway “libertarians.”

But in sharp and stark contrast, Buchanan’s views on international trade are bloody awful. He is a protectionist through and through. He never saw a tariff he didn’t like (I exaggerate, but only slightly). Even Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, quasi libertarians at best, can see through this economic illiteracy of Buchanan’s. Friedman, happily, has called for a US unilateral declaration of free trade with all other nations, whether or not they reciprocate. This is the only position consistent with libertarianism. I strive mightily each semester, sometimes even successfully, to inculcate my freshman students with enough economic knowledge to see through the fallacies of protectionism. Mr. Buchanan simply has no knowledge of the doctrine of comparative advantage, specialization and the division of labor.

How can Buchanan be so insightful in one area of human action, foreign policy, and yet so dreadful on another, international trade? Inquiring minds want to know. This may be one of the greatest mysteries of the modern era of political economic commentary.

The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com.

6 comments:

  1. What Dr. Block sees as insight on foreign policy vs a lack of insight on trade isn't that difficult to explain. Libertarians approach both trade and foreign policy from position of non-aggression. This approach of principal over politics is what leads us to common sense solutions rather than pandering to whims of one special interest over another. Pat Buchanan isn't and never has been a libertarian. He'd be the first to say that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never heard Buchanan claim to be a libertarian and this is the first time I have seen someone (Block) try to cast him in that light somehow. Just because your articles appear on lwerockwell.com doesn't automatically mean you as a libertarian.

      Delete
  2. --- Mr. Buchanan simply has no knowledge of the doctrine of comparative advantage, specialization and the division of labor. ---

    He probably does, but like Marx before him, he disdains such concepts through and through as he roots his protectionism not in sound economics but in a romanticized notion of work as ennobling rather than being a mean to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can a libertarian country defend itself if it no longer manufactures weapons of defense? Stockpiling reduces but does not eliminate the risk. For example at the start of WW1 no one expected it to last beyond Xmas. I can see a justification for tariffs for steel production, ship building etc esp when these are dumped by military rivals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which countries attack each other? The ones with lots of weapons or the ones with much less?

      Delete
  4. The problem is that libertarian policies, if enacted in a non libertarian world, impose force upon numerous citizens who are simply minding their own business. As a small L libertarian I certainly believe that libertarian policies are ultimately the ne plus ultra but it is hard to explain to the average person why immigration, for example, is a good thing when under the current system the average person gets screwed do to the imposition of welfare state tax and redistribution policies. One has to remember that "liberty" imposed upon some is the imposition of force. It is complicated. And yet so simple in the abstract and the totality.

    ReplyDelete