Nationalists and Federalists

Nationalists and Federalists

Thomas Allen

Since the ratification of the Constitution of 1788, nationalists and federalists have been struggling to control the government of the United States. With the possible exception of the Cleveland administration, the nationalists have controlled the US government since the election of Lincoln. (Federalists should not be confused with the early Federalist Party of Washington and Adams, which was primarily a nationalist party. As contradictory as it may sound, the Antifederalists of that era were the real federalists.) The following is a comparison of nationalists and federalists.

1– Nationalists support a living constitution where the US Supreme Court, the President, and Congress continuously change the interpretation of the Constitution to meet current needs, i.e., to satiate their lust for power. Among their favorite clauses are the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause (which means that anything Congress deems to be for the general welfare), and the Necessary and Proper Clause. They give these and other clauses extremely elastic interpretations.

On the other hand, federalists support a strict, limited interpretation of the Constitution. They advocate interpreting the Constitution to mean what the proponents of the ratification of the Constitution explained it to mean and its intent. Records of their remarks are available in the debates of the ratification conventions, the Federalist Papers, and other writings that promoted the Constitution.

2– While nationalists advocate the consolidation of political power where the national government (a.k.a. the central government, the federal government, the US government, and the general government) has unlimited power, federalists advocate the dispersal of political power where the federal government has limited, enumerated power.

3– According to nationalists, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of federal acts (and even most State acts). Thus, the national government is the sole arbitrator of its political power.

Federalists assert that “we the people” of each State, either through their legislatures or special conventions, are the ultimate and final arbitrators of the constitutionality of a federal act. If a State finds that a federal act is unconstitutional, it is void in that State, but it may continue to be applied in the other States.

4– Nationalists maintain that all federal acts are constitutional until the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, which it rarely does. (Being a branch of the national government, the Supreme Court cannot be an unbiased arbitrator. Most of the time, it decides in favor of the national government and against the States.) 

However, federalists maintain that only federal acts pursuant to the Constitution are constitutional. Any federal act that does not implement or apply one of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution has not been made pursuant to the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, i.e., it is not a law and consequently void.

5– Nationalists loathe States’ rights. They consider States to be merely administrative districts of the national government.  

Quite the opposite, federalists are ardent proponents of States’ rights. States, i.e., “we the people” of each State, are the heart and soul of the Constitution and the federal government that they created. Without the States, the Constitution and federal government would not exist. Furthermore, each State acting independently is the final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts. Consequently, if a State finds a federal act unconstitutional, it is duty-bound to nullify that act within its jurisdiction.

6– Nationalists place the power of the national government above all. Therefore, they view secession as treason and a sacrilege.

Federalists place the welfare of their community, people, and land above the federal government. Thus, they view secession as a means of preservation.

7– Nationalists are inclined toward foreign intervention and imperialism and are, therefore, bellicostic. They seek hegemony.

Contrastingly, federalists desire not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and seek peace and trade with all. Consequently, they prefer peace to war.

8– Nationalists favor government-business partnerships, mercantilism, protectionism, centralized banking, easy credit (inflation), and government indebtedness. Thus, they favor big business, big labor, and the concentration of economic power. Prosperity is created through mercantilism, i.e., corporate welfare, protectionism, and central banking. 

On the other hand, federalists favor free trade, free markets, free enterprise, decentralized banking, the separation of government and banking, the stable value of money, and minimum or no government debt. Thus, they favor the dispersal of economic power. Free markets create prosperity.

9– Nationals accept the welfare state, for it increases the national government’s control over the people and, consequently, its power.

Federalists prefer private and church charities to governmental welfare. However, if a government is to be involved in welfare, it should be the local government.

10– Nationalists rely on the national government to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is a primary function of the national government. (Today, perversion is often considered righteousness.)

Federalists rely on the independence of citizens to promote and preserve the virtues of the people. Making people righteous is primarily the work of churches (true churches and not today’s woke churches).

11– Nationalists construe the Constitution as a teleological document (establishing a society based on abstract principles of natural rights, equality, democracy, etc.)

Federalists construe it as a nomocratic document (bringing government under the rule of law).

12– Nationalists lean toward inclusion and, therefore, amalgamation.

Yet, federalists lean toward diversity and, therefore, separation. Moreover, 

federalists are more tolerant than are nationalists.

While nationalists promote the concentration of political, economic, and social power, federalists promote their dispersal.

Regrettably, most State governmental officials have sold their souls to the nationalists. Since most State officials prefer lucre to liberty, the nationalists have bought them with federal grant money. (Nowhere does the Constitution delegate the federal government the authority to issue grants — much less to use federal funds for bribery.)

In summary, while nationalists are centralists, federalists are decentralists (see “Centralism Verses Decentralism” by Thomas Allen.) Furthermore, while nationalists are statists, federalists are libertists (“Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen). Consequently, nationalists prefer the constitution that Lincoln and the Republicans, as further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and carried to fruition by the Warren Court, gave the United States, while the federalists prefer the Constitution of the Founding Fathers (see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen).

Federalism is achieved when more people know the names of their governors and State legislators than know the names of the President and their members of Congress.

Afterthought. Generally, nationalists divide into two major factions. One follows the attributes in the above list. The other follows the political and social attributes, although they disagree about the virtues that the national government should impose and the extent of the welfare state. However, the second faction agrees more with the federalists on economic matters. Further, some nationalists are less favorable to foreign interventionism than others.

Unfortunately, not all federalists are consistent. Many act like nationalists on economic matters. Some federalists are inclined toward the warfare state (foreign interventionism) and welfare states and support such endeavors, especially when their State receives money from the federal government for military bases and various social and welfare programs.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Tariffs as Revenue

Tariffs as Revenue

Thomas Allen

Some people, like President Trump, suggest replacing the federal income tax with tariffs. Tariffs are heralded as a means to increase employment and wages and to reduce, if not eliminate, dependency on foreign sources.

The primary benefit of replacing income tax with tariffs is that the federal government's size would need to be reduced by 80 to 90 percent. That is about the size of the federal government that tariffs could support without exploding debt that would dwarf the current federal debt — this assumes that the tariff is for revenue and not protectionism. 

Replacing the income tax with tariffs will, at least in the short run, result in a large-scale loss of jobs. More than a million federal employees will lose their jobs. Likewise, a much larger number of people whose livelihoods depend on federal contracts will lose theirs. Also, many State and local employees will lose their jobs because these jobs depend on federal grant money. Many people whose jobs depend on the federal government will become unemployed.

Additionally, if the goal of the tariff is to promote and protect domestic companies, the federal government will collect even less revenue. The more effective that a tariff is at protecting domestic companies, the less the country imports. Fewer imports result in less revenue for the federal government.

Exports buy imports. The less the country imports, the less it can export. Conversely, the less the country exports, the less it can import. If the country imports less, the federal government collects less revenue. As the country approaches autarky, the federal government becomes smaller for want of revenue — if tariffs are the primary source of revenue. By then, most of the federal government’s budget will be used to prevent smuggling.

Also, many people believe that the exporters pay the tariffs. They do not. Consumers of the importing country pay the tariffs. In this respect, tariffs are like sales taxes; the buyer pays the tax; the seller does not.

One great advantage resulting from abandoning the income tax is that it frees the slaves from the largest slave owner in the country, the US government. Slavery is defined as one party or person owning the labor of another. The income tax is a tax on labor; that is, the amount of labor that it takes a person to pay his taxes is the amount of labor owned by the US government.

If the purpose of tariffs is revenue, then the same percentage should be levied on all imported goods without considering the product imported or the country of origin. Thus, the federal government does not pick favorites or winners and losers by levying higher tariffs on some imports than on others.

Appendix 1. Reciprocal Tariffs

President Trump has implemented reciprocal tariffs on countries that levy tariffs on imports from the United States. His goal is for these countries to eliminate their tariffs on imports from the United States in exchange for the United States eliminating their tariffs on imports from their countries. However, such reciprocal tariffs are unconstitutional — at least under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the United States.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to levy tariffs. It does not delegate the President such power. Consequently, Congress would have to levy the reciprocal tariffs and give the President the authority to implement them. Even if Congress enacted such a law, it would be unconstitutional. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the Constitution authorizes Congress to levy tariffs for revenue and for no other reasons, such as protectionism or reciprocity. The goal of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs is to eliminate tariffs and, consequently, eliminate raising revenue from tariffs.

Appendix 2. Replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax

For years, some people have been promoting replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. If a sales tax is to replace the income tax, it needs to be done by constitutional amendment. This amendment must clearly prohibit all taxes on income from whatever source (wages, salaries, tips, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.). Also, it must fix the maximum tax rate. Further, it must clearly define in great detail what can be taxed and what cannot be taxed. Moreover, it must not provide any outs, such as national or economic emergencies or war. Most importantly, the amendment needs to be written so that someone with an IQ of 70, which is about the average IQ of federal judges, can understand it.

Appendix 3. Eliminating the Corporate Income Tax

The North Carolina General Assembly is moving toward eliminating the corporate income tax. If it retains an income tax, it should eliminate the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax. Why? Corporations (C corporations, S corporations, B corporations, limited liability companies, nonprofits, closed corporations, professional corporations, etc.), unlike a natural person, are creatures of the government and have privileges that individuals do not have. Moreover, the personal income tax enslaves people. Corporate income taxes do not because corporations are not living beings (contrary to what the US Supreme Court and many libertarians believe).

Moreover, a natural person has a natural law right to privacy. The income tax is a massive invasion of privacy. On the other hand, being creatures of the government, corporations have no right to privacy; the government has every right to know what its creatures are doing. (If we have a government of, by, and for the people, and if the people are the masters and the government is the servant — as our politicians continuously remind us — then the people have the right to know everything about the government, including information classified as top secret; the government has no right to secrecy. By extension, the people also have a right to know everything that a corporation does.)

Proprietaries, partnerships, and associations that do not have a charter from a government should be treated as individuals. Likewise, churches that are not incorporated should be exempt from income taxes. Individuals and organizations exempt from income tax should not report any kind of income to the government.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic articles.

Why I am not a White Nationalist — Where They Are Wrong Economically

Why I am not a White Nationalist — 

Where They Are Wrong Economically

Thomas Allen

White Nationalists advocate adopting highly invasive, liberty-destroying, and immensely destructive economic and monetary programs. A discussion of some of them follows.

– Managed economy. White Nationalists have a low opinion of the free market, free enterprise economic system; like most people, they confuse it with capitalism. (See “Capitalists and Socialists” by Thomas Allen.) Even those who do not confuse it with capitalism have an especially low opinion of it. Since White Nationalists have more trust and confidence in bureaucrats than they have in the people, even White people, they prefer a governmentally managed economy to a free market, free enterprise economy.

– Communist threat to capitalists. Contrary to what many White Nationalists believe, capitalists do not have to be threatened with communism. Few White Nationalists know that if it were not for capitalists’ succor, communism would have died a stillbirth. (See “Soviet Union” and “China” by Thomas Allen.)

– Welfare. Although White Nationalists oppose Martin Luther King’s social justice (discrimination against Whites and special privileges for Blacks and other nonwhites), they not only want to implement his economic justice but also expand it. Like King, they are proponents of the welfare state. They seem to admire President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society (except the civil rights and immigration parts of it). Their primary objection to the Great Society is the recipients of the benefits. The principal problem that White Nationalists seem to have with King’s economic justice is that he did not go far enough. Like King, they have no qualms about forcibly taking property from producers and giving it to nonproducers.

Most White Nationalists advocate a welfare state for the benefit of the working and middle classes. Contrary to what many of them believe, mostly the working and middle classes will pay for this welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state benefits the oligarchs more than anyone else since it makes the working and middle classes more dependent on the government, which the oligarchs control. When a person is receiving financial benefits from the government, he is less likely to object to governmental actions even if they are detrimental to him because he fears losing his benefits. Some White Nationalists find such control desirable.

– Protectionism. Like many statists, White Nationalists are proponents of protectionism. They want to protect politically favored industries from competition. Thus, they are enamored with government-business partnerships, i.e., corporate welfare; protectionism is just a form of corporate welfare.

Protectionism may give workers in the protected industry higher pay, but it does so at the expense of other workers with higher prices, which lowers their standard of living. Protectionism is of little benefit to construction workers, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, medical faculty workers, teachers, hospitality workers, and most service providers. Often, protectionism adversely affects workers in the protected industries. Owners of the protected industries are the primary beneficiaries. (For more discussion on protectionism, see “Questions for Protectionists,” “Do We Really Need to Return to Hamilton,” and “A Letter: Tariffs” by Thomas Allen.)

Instead of giving politically favored industries special advantages with tariffs and quotas at the expense of consumers, a more prudent approach that would save taxpayers money and encourage manufacturers not to build their plants overseas should be used. This approach ends all subsidies that encourage them to locate their factories overseas. Moreover, the US armed forces would not be used to protect their property in foreign countries. Also, reducing regulations on domestic manufacturers would reduce the incentive to move outside the country. One thing that most people forget is that imports are bought with exports. The more a country imports, the more it must export. (Currently, a major export of the United States is the fiat US dollar.)

– Interest. Some White Nationalists want to outlaw interest. When the government suppresses the rate of interest, the country consumes its capital. As a country uses its capital for consumption, its economy deteriorates and poverty grows. Eventually, all its capital is consumed and it returns to the hunter-gatherer stage. (For a more detailed discussion on interest, see “Usury” and “Questions for Anti-Usurers” by Thomas Allen.)

– Fiat money. Like all statists, White Nationalists adore fiat money and abhor commodity money (gold and silver). (For the difference between fiat money and commodity money, see “What Is the Difference Between Commodity and Fiat Money” by Thomas Allen.) Unlike the founding fathers, who trusted the people and left control of the money supply directly in the hands of the people, White Nationalists trust politicians and bureaucrats to regulate and control the money supply. Under the gold coin standard contained in the US Constitution, the people decided how many gold coins were needed by the quantity of gold they brought to the mint for coinage and the quantity of gold coins they melted for nonmonetary uses. (See "Constitutional Money" by Thomas Allen.) The same is true for the silver standard. (For more on the gold standard, see “What is the Gold Standard?” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, gold extinguishes debt, while fiat money merely discharges debt by passing it to another. (See “Extinguishing Debt” by Thomas Allen.) A major reason that fiat money adherents hate the true gold-coin standard is that the government cannot control the money under the gold-coin standard.

When accompanied by the real bills doctrine, enough money is created to clear the market of newly produced goods. Most of the money created under the real bills doctrine goes initially to the workers and suppliers of material used to manufacture the products. Further, when money created under the real bills doctrine has done its work, it is automatically removed from the market and does not cause inflation. A chief flaw of all fiat monetary systems is a lack of a mechanism to remove excess money from the economy; consequently, fiat monetary systems nearly always have problems with inflation. (For more discussion on the real bills doctrine, see “Real Bills Doctrine” by Thomas Allen.)

– Social credits. Some White Nationalists prefer the social credit fiat monetary system. This system is highly flawed and will fail to do what its supporters claim it will do. It is highly invasive and greatly swells the ranks of governmental bureaucrats. Moreover, it demands enormous amounts of record-keeping, reporting, and data analysis. Nevertheless, most White Nationalists probably know nothing about the social credit system, and many have never heard of it. (For a detailed discussion of the social credit system, see “Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms as Presented in We Hold These Truths” by Thomas Allen.)

Central bank digital currency is ideal for the social credit economy because it makes tracking private spending transparent and, therefore, easier. Further, it reduces the time between collecting and analyzing data and the injection of new currency. Also, it can be used to force people to spend by directly stealing their savings. (Most social credit advocates despise savings.)

Moreover, since the social credit economy requires an administrative state, it is compatible with an administrative state. (An administrative state is a state ruled by experts and technocrats for the benefit of the oligarchs.) Most other fiat monetary reform schemes also require an administrative state. Furthermore, the administrative state eliminates checks and balances by merging the executive, legislative, and judicial functions into one agency, which is what many White Nationalists seem to want.

– Guaranteed income. Like King, White Nationalists promote a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income is the foundation of the social credit system.

– Economic summary. The difference between the monetary and economic system that White Nationalism promotes and that fascism and socialism promote is difficult to distinguish. (Since the United States have adopted at least 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto, distinguishing between the US government and a communist government is often difficult. See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) All want to use the government to force people, ultimately under the penalty of death, to do what most people do not naturally want to do. 

Conclusion

Many White Nationalists seem to overlook the necessity of a firm moral foundation. Christianity used to provide this foundation. However, between World War I and World War II, it began earnestly to be phased out. During the civil rights era, this foundation has been nearly eradicated as Christian denominations replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King and wokeism. To replace dying Christianity, a few White Nationalists promote paganism, especially Nordic paganism. Yet, paganism offers no firm moral foundation. Various forms of paganism are prominent in America today; the three most popular are the worship of Hermes (sports), Gaia (climate change), and Moloch (abortion). Most White Nationalists seem to want to replace Christianity with the welfare state and the worship of the state.

Only a few White Nationalists seem to realize that the political and economic policies and programs that they advocate lead to despotic tyranny even if the country is entirely White. Although they deplore totalitarianism, their worship of the state and their proposed economic system leads to totalitarianism.

Their love of statism, support of the welfare state, and the proposed monetary and economic system disqualify me from being a White Nationalist. Nevertheless, they are generally correct in their solution to racial problems and many other social issues. However, their ignorance of economics knows no bounds. As abysmal as the current monetary and economic system is in the US, the proposals of White Nationalists are far worse.

Further, the primary difference between the typical White Nationalist and the typical left-winger is racial and social issues. Other than these issues, they mostly agree on other issues at least in principle although they may differ in details.

In summary, the foreign and social policies of White Nationalism are excellent. However, its political and economic policies are horrendous.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 Part 2

More political articles.

Question for Protectionists

Questions for Protectionists

Thomas Allen

To aid those who are not enamored with protectionism to better understand protectionism, advocates of protectionism need to justify protectionism by answering the following questions.

Since when did free trade require unaccountable international agencies like NAFTA and WTO to manage it?

Since when did free trade require one mandatory international codex after another to make it fair trade?

Since when did free trade require subsidizing domestic companies to build factories in other countries as the United States have been doing for decades?

Why do many protectionists claim that the U.S. Constitution authorizes, even commands, Congress to restrict and prevent imports? Where does the U.S. Constitution authorize or demand protectionism? Isn’t the power delegated to Congress to levy tariffs (duties) on imports for the purpose of raising income instead of protectionism? Isn’t it true that the more effective tariffs are at preventing imports, the less revenue they raise; and when tariffs are 100 percent effective at preventing imports, they raise no revenue? If not, why?

If protectionism, i.e., restrictions on trade, is beneficial, why did the American colonists object to the trade restrictions imposed by the British government? Why did they not demand more trade restrictions?

Were Lincoln’s protective tariffs worth the 600,000 lives lost to impose them? Why?

When one country trades another country I.O.U. Nothing that can be repudiated at any moment for useful tangible products, such as steel, computers, or televisions, who has received the greater value, and who has the advantage?

If protectionism creates wealth, why not make the United States 50 times wealthier by creating 50 autarkic States?

If trade barriers at a country’s borders are desirable, shouldn’t internal trade barriers also be desirable? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

Why is the scarcity of goods that results from protectionism better than an abundance of goods?

How does a country benefit from having less? For example, without protectionism, a worker can exchange a day of labor for one domestically manufactured pair of shoes or two foreign-manufactured pairs of shoes. Protectionism prevents him from buying foreign shoes. How does he benefit from having one pair fewer shoes? How does the country benefit from having one pair fewer shoes?

Why should people be forced to work longer for the same quantity of goods, which is what protectionism does?

Why are high prices, which is the result of protectionism, preferable to low prices? Why do retirees and others on fixed income benefit more from high prices than from low prices as they must under protectionism? Is this just and why?

As the objective of protectionism is to keep prices high, shouldn’t the government do all that it can to stifle and even prohibit innovations that drive prices down? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

Why is "doing less with more," which is the outcome of protectionism, more desirable than "doing more with less," which is the natural inclination of mankind? Is not the objective of protectionism to direct resources from their most efficient use, "doing more with less," to less efficient use, "doing less with more"? If this is not protectionism objective, why is this the outcome of protectionism?

If a protectionist is going to be consistent, shouldn’t he seek to maximize his cost, labor, effort, and inefficiencies in his personal endeavors, which is what protectionism seeks to do for the country as a whole? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

Why should consumers be forced, ultimately under the penalty of death, to buy overpriced and often inferior products, which is what protectionism does?

Why should the government arbitrarily pick winners and losers in economic activities, which is what it does with protectionism?

Why should the government (politics) decide what the people are to buy as it does with protectionism, instead of letting the people themselves (economics) decide what to buy?

Is transferring wealth from the politically weak to the politically powerful, which is what protectionism does, just and desirable? Why?

Why should the interest of producers be placed above the interest of consumers, which is what protectionism does?

Economically, what is the difference between restricting the importation of iron and steel to benefit iron and steel producers and restricting sanitation to benefit hospitals, doctors, drug manufacturers, and undertakers?

Why should consumers be treated as though they are the property of producers and their politicians, which is what protectionism does?

Why are voluntary exchanges undesirable and in need of prohibition?

Why should freedom of exchange be allowed for some products but prohibited for others?

Why do protectionists consider that which is good for an individual, a family, a county, and a State to be evil for the country? If not, shouldn’t they be advocating trade restrictions between families, counties, and States? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

Which is more important: the amount that a worker is paid, which is the focus of protectionism, or the amount that a worker can buy with his pay?

As protectionism prevents workers from exchanging their labor for the largest quantity of goods and services possible, how can protectionism be just? Is requiring workers to pay artificially higher prices, which protectionism causes, just, desirable, and beneficial to workers? Why?

Does a worker’s pay depend on the supply of and the demand for labor or on the prices of goods?

Why is erecting obstacles to the movement of goods, which is what protectionism does, much more desirable than diminishing and eliminating obstacles? If the erection of barriers to the movement of goods is desirable, shouldn’t the government do all that it can to erect obstacles to the movement of goods everywhere? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

Why should the government expend resources to remove natural barriers to trade such as building new roads and bridges while it is erecting artificial barriers such as protective tariffs? As the objective of protectionism is to prevent trade, why expend resources to improve trade?

What is the difference between reducing the supply of food with protectionism and reducing the supply of food by plowing under crops? If a protectionist believes that food should not be restricted, he needs to explain his bigotry against farmers and why farmers should be forced to pay higher prices for his supplies from protected industries.

If a farmer in Maine decides to grow coffee, shouldn’t Congress erect trade barriers to protect this new domestic industry from foreign imports? If not, why? Are some industries more worthy of protection than others? If so, why? Who decides, how do they decide, and why?

If the importation of products from Montreal is so injurious to Chicago that they must be stopped or at least greatly restricted, as protectionism demands, wouldn’t the importation of products from New Orleans also be injurious to Chicago? Shouldn’t importations from New Orleans also be stopped or restricted? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

If, for example, tool manufacturers in Texas need protection from tool manufacturers in Brazil because Brazil subsidies its tool manufacturers, do tool manufacturers in Texas need protection from tool manufacturers in New York because New York subsidies its tool manufacturers? If not, why? Why the inconsistency? From the perspective of tool manufacturers in Texas, what is the difference?

As exporting countries give gifts to importing countries when they subsidize their exports, why should such gifts be prohibited or taxed away? Doesn’t consistency demand prohibiting or taxing away all gifts including Christmas gifts and birthday gifts? If not, why? Why the inconsistency? Do not Christmas and birthday gifts reduce the productivity of the recipient by relieving the recipient of the need to work longer to acquire the gifts?

If protectionism is used to equalize the prices of foreign-produced articles with domestically produced articles (this is a favorite argument of protectionists), shouldn’t the government require producers and sellers to sell all similar articles at the same price, preferably at the price of the highest producer or seller? If not, why? Why allow the inconsistency? Why should a competitive advantage be allowed in one case and not in the other?

If the country places restrictions on importation of goods to "equalize" the cost of regulations, taxes, labor, etc. shouldn’t States with high costs because of regulations, taxes, labor, etc. be allowed to restrict imports from States with lower costs? If they shouldn’t, why? Why the inconsistency?

If protectionism is needed to protect domestic workers from lower-wage foreign workers in another country, why isn’t protectionism needed to protect domestic workers in a State from lower-wage workers in other States? Doesn’t consistency demand protection in both situations? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

If protectionism is needed to protect domestic workers from foreign workers, aren’t laws needed to protect workers from machines (mechanical labor) by forbidding labor-saving machines? If not, why? Why the inconsistency?

If high-wage countries need protectionism to protect themselves from low-wage countries, why do low-wage countries enact protectionism to protect themselves from high-wage countries? Conversely, if low-wage countries need protectionism to protect themselves from high-wage countries, why do high-wage countries enact protectionism to protect themselves from low-wage countries?

If protectionism stimulates industry and promotes prosperity, shouldn’t communities that are the most isolated show the greatest advancements, progress, growth, and prosperity? Why do they not?

If protectionism strengthens a country, why do countries, when they go to war, seek to prevent their enemies from importing goods? If protection strengthens a country, blockades, the ultimate form of protectionism, should make an enemy unbeatable, shouldn’t they? If not, why? Does protectionism strengthen in one case, and in the other it weakens? If so, why? Why the inconsistency?

If free trade weakens a country, when countries go to war shouldn’t they use their navies to open the enemy’s ports and dump goods there? Shouldn’t they use their air force to drop goods instead of bombs? As free trade, especially dumping goods below cost, destroys a country, shouldn’t dumping free goods bring down a country quicker and safer than the instruments of war? If not, why? Does free trade weaken a country in one case, and in the other, it does not? If so, why? Why the inconsistency?

When has authoritarian political control of the economy, which is what protectionism is, ever been superior to freedom?

As protectionism is the heart of mercantilism, why do protectionists insist on continuing the antiquated and archaic mercantile system that all economists of merit have denounced for 200 years?

Copyright © 2009 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on economics.