Freedom Of The Seas

[KommanderWill]

A slight libertarian dilemma, one I have given some occasional thought to. Partially a dead issue nowadays, but I think that regarding principles it is neccessary to examine.

Trade. What should the role of government be regarding overseas trade.
Apart from customs, that is.

Here is the situation. America can go out and trade with other nations, but what happens when our ships get attacked? Does the federal government declare war on the pirates/other nation? Or does the government simply say, "its a risk you take when you trade overseas"

Think about it, the freedom of the seas has pulled us into quite a few wars. WWI most specifically, and to a lesser extent, WWII. On one hand, do we have a right to trade with whomever we want?
Or could trading with a belligerent be seen as allying yourself with them?
Certainly trading with both Germany and England/France in WWI angered each side, causing both sides to target our ships. Can we blame them? What is our proper course of action? To declare war on both sides? To escort our merchants with our cruisers?
Does the federal government have the duty to protect the rights of life and property of merchants when they leave American soil? If so, do the same protections apply on international waters but not foreign lands?

It is a choice to trade internationally yes, but it is a choice to trade at all, and the government still protects internal trade.

Now, I havent read any Buchanan on this one, but I can imagine him being all over free trade as raising all sorts of hell because of this issue.

So, from my fellow libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, how do you guys feel about this issue of freedom of the seas?

 

[KommanderWill]

Dammit, i need answers

For real, do any of you guys have a libertarian opinion on freedom of the high seas?

 

[KommanderWill]

Damn, somebody else post.

Last I checked, Ron Paul supporters were diehard libertarians.

Well, heres some of my thoughts:

Yes, property rights are to be protected by the government, but what about outside the country. Clearly, the government hasnt the jurisdiction to extend its domestic duties(life, liberty, and property) on foreign nations, but can it extend its power to protect its citizens within foreign nations?

If so, what does this entail in terms of governmental power?
If you wished to trade with a nation, the government would have to escort you to the nation, no? If this nation was belligerent, would the government not have to engage in a conflict, almost like colony building? It is true after all that a major drive of imperialism was opening up foreign markets.
That example may be exaggerated, but the point remains. SHould your natural rights, enforced by the feds, extend over foriegn nations. Should the populous be subjected to protecting you when you arent even in your own nation?

Or should the government avoid such endeavors? If they want to trade with you, make them establish a peaceful market in their own country, or come to the US to trade.

Of course we also must ask about my original point, freedom of the seas. If 2 nations are trading, (for sake of the example, you are the 1st gov)and a 3rd intervenes, are the two governments obligated to fight the 3rd? One may say yes, of course, but if the 2nd and 3rd governments are fighting each other, is the 3rd not justified in trying to cut off your trade with the 2nd, seeing as your actions are aiding the 2nd nation, making you like an ally? Yes, this is essentially something like WW1. So the question is, if commercial interests put themselves in such a vulnerable position, does the government need to still protect their property rights?

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

if they were to attack our ships and American citizens, I'd say that was a clear justification for war

 

[AutoDas]

If a country encroaches on free-trade then America should protect its people and property through out the world as long as they weren't the ones who provoked foreigners.

If America prohibited trading with belligerents then we'd be an isolationist country and could we even be allowed to trade with ourselves?

 

[apc3161]

It's a tough question that I have been thinking about for a few months now. I still haven't come up with an answer.

If you used the Navy to protected merchants, well that inherently means the merchants are taking advantages of free services, paid for by the average taxpayer, that they would otherwise have to pay themselves.

Another analogy would be middle eastern oil fields. We spend a lot of money guarding Exxon's, BP's, Chevrons' oil fields. So that is a case where the average taxpayer is paying the bill for a service that they would have to provide and pay for themselves. But if we didn't. would we have enough oil?

If we didn't protect merchants, would we have a lot of trade or not?

Should the U.S solely be devoted to defending people here at home such that once you leave the country, you are on your own, knowing that risk that you take when you leave? Tough questions.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

Didn't this happen with the pirates out of Tripoli? I'm pretty sure that if ships are seized on the high seas its an illegal act. I think thats the old school term for international waters.
Now if vessels are seized in a nations home waters or ports thats a different story. But piracy on the high seas should be opposed, with force if necessary.

 

[KommanderWill]

Piracy does bring up a good point. And it was a founder that fought the Barbary wars, no? Letter of marque and reprisal could be a possibility. But piracy is a dead issue now, naval piracy that is. Impressment is another issue(dead as well) along these same lines.

But what about trade in general. International trade drug the US into two world wars. Hell, we fought an undeclared naval war against germany during WWI. Preferential trade status could be a sign of alliance. Trading with both or neither is sure to enrage both sides either way. On one hand, trading with both sides perpetuates the war, it could possibility enlarge and become an issue for us. On the other hand, prohibiting trade with both sides might scale down the fighting, but at the cost of our economy. Jefferson's embargo acts almost caused a civil war, with the North threatening to secede.

For me, the freedom to trade, and the merchants' freedom, is essential, and deserves to be protected. The question is, who shall do such a thing? The merchant takes an inherent risk in doing business outside the US. Note even then there is a big difference between doing business in international waters and in foreign countries. In foreign countries, should the US gov still protect the property rights of it's citizens? I would say no, it does not. THey are under a different government at that point, even if they are just visiting. If such a concept was applied, a billionaire could hide his money in a bank(which he opened) in Africa, then demand the US government protect him and his bank. Of course enforcing property rights in another country could force the US federal government to prohibit foreign states from taxing investments by americans in their countries. Summarily, such protection by the US government could lead to taxation of such overseas assets in order to protect them. Accordingly, we must also refuse to protect property rights of our merchant's in foreign ports, and thus perhaps even in route to such ports, no? And foreign companies could either rely on their foreign governments or the private sector security, they shouldnt get US government support.

As I said, merchants deserve protection on international waters and in foreign lands. But who should provide it? Merchants could defend their own ships in international waters, or hire firms to do this for them. However, they do pay taxes, so dont they deserve protection. This though brings up a curious point. THe US constitution forbids taxes on exports. THus, if we accept no taxation on exports, do we accept no federal responsibility to protect those imports? Sales taxes can be justified in the fact that the gov uses these funds to protect property.

Is anyone else getting anarcho-capitalist thoughts from all this talk about property rights and the extent of government provided property rights?

 

[Zolah]

I'm thinking along the lines of huge reductions in naval merchant taxes, and then they could choose to hire protection, haven't put much thought in to it though.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

if they were to attack our ships and American citizens, I'd say that was a clear justification for war

I suppose it would also matter if your freighter/cargo ship was under contract with the government which many maerchant marine vessels are. If not then insurance companies are contracted with the cargo to cover risk. Not only for pirates but to storms and other losses encountered on the open seas.

opps almost forgot this link for info.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm