Let's talk about the capitalist idea of 'freedom': free trade

alexandra

Hi all

So-called "free trade" is one of the holy grails of capitalism, is it not? And the USA takes the lead in creating and defending free markets? How, then, does one explain this?

Just one example of 'capitalist freedom'

This is just the tip of the iceberg, of course - if we delve deeper into 'free markets' (which perhaps we may care to do in this thread) . Some introductory reading can be found in the links at the bottom of this webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

russ_watters

The US, like every country, is first and foremost out for its own self-interest.

So what?

EL

Sure. (We have all noticed US politics is mainly based on self-interest... )
Although I think it's a quite sick attitude. I've never understood this patriotic stuff.

russ_watters

What do you mean? Are you saying that most other countries are not primarily out for their own self-interest?

alexandra

You ask 'So what?' My response to this question is that this would be ok, were it not for the hypocrisy, the ideological obscurantism involved in claiming that one is promoting 'freedom' when one is, in fact, not.

EL

I said "sure", which means I agree with that most countries primarly acts for their own best, and I especially find that it holds well for USA.
However, I don't like (and cannot really understand) that patriotic attitude, and hope it will change in the future.

Gokul43201

Where does patriotism even come into the discussion here ?

The guiding principle is self-preservation.

X-43D

Conservatism is more accurate. It does share some elements with nationalism.

EL

Yes. Self-preservation of individuals.
However, I have a hard time to see why I should care more about a random Swede than say a random American or Arab.
Ok, it's of course sometimes that carying more about my countrymen could give me personal advantages, but I don't find it's like that in general.

Take a hypotetical situation where you have to chose between killing either a compatriot or a foreigner, and you don't know any of them at all. Who would you choose?
Myself i would have to toss a coin since I cannot see why I should save the Swede just because he happened to be born on "the rigth side" of an imaginary line...
But my impression is that most people don't think like that.

rachmaninoff

The OP situation is absurd. Does a country not have the right to refuse to sell its military technology to a rival country?

EL

Agree, it was a quite strange example. However I guess she wants to discuss the subject in a more general manner.

X-43D

It's not so free when technologically advanced and militarily powerful countries dominate weaker countries using force when necessarily.

russ_watters

What hypocrisy? It says right there in the first paragraph of the US Constitution that the US government exists for the benefit of the citizens of the US.

There is no hypocrisy: you are arguing a strawman for the purpose of baseless USA-bashing.

In addition, one person saying that the US sometimes acts out of egalitarianism does not mean they are saying the US always acts out of egalitarianism. Conversely, showing that the US sometimes acts out of selfishness or self-preservation does not prove that the US always acts out of selfishness. You're using the same logical fallacy that Burnsys used in the thread about the US spreading freedom.

russ_watters

You answered your own question - but whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, it's a reality. A person's first duty is to him/herself. If you are not prosperous, you can't help Sweden become prosperous. If Sweden is not prosperous, it can't help the Arab world become prosperous.

People see it as greed or selfishness, but it is a useful, practical reality and there isn't anything wrong with it. Why be so negative with the scenario? (I don't think that scenario fits the conversation): consider a homeless person who lives on the corner of your street vs one who lives in Iraq. Which one do you toss your daily change to? As with the above, the fact that you have a personal connection with the poor person on your street corner (you have to look at him every day, while you'll never meet this faceless Iraqi) does not make it wrong to give him the money instead of some Iraqi that you will never meet - even if you are only tossing him some change out of a sense of personal shame.

wasteofo2

The U.S. isn't ideologically 100% Capitalist. We're more capitalist than any major country in the world, but we're not solely devouted to one ideology at the expense of everything else.

For what it's worth, I really don't think Republicans are Capitalist at all...

Blahness

Capitalism is a system that'd collapse if truely free.

Though, I don't understand why they'd block that particular deal.

What I mean is like outsourcing.

EL

Sure. But reality can be changed.

Agree.

And say if I don't like the typical Swedish values very much. Why should I want Sweden to become prosperous?
What I can't stand is this "unconditional love" of ones home country. Often it is not a self-preserving attitude, but mostly something just others benefit from, without you getting anything back. Or even making things worse for you. (Note that I'm not saying you or anyone else here is of this type, but there are plenty of them out there...)

Well I hardly see any homeless people in this country. If they are, they are so of their own free will.
Anyway I have given much, much more money to organizations working in Africa and Asia than I have given to poor people here.