From: ME
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 10:03 PM
To: walter block; Walter Block
Subject: comparative advantage AND international pollution
Hi Dr. Block, I am always reticent to email you and do so only when I am unable to articulate a defense, or google it, myself. I was hoping you’d have some resources you could direct me to on two things, if you have the time. If it matters, we’ve corresponded in the past, met once, and I am a yyyuge fan. My free-market-leaning-friend is becoming more and more interested (esp since I gave him economics in one lesson and defending the undefendable) and has asked some great questions that I cannot answer satisfactorily.
1) comparative advantage — do you have anything written on this? specifically, your bananas/maple syrup and wheat/TV examples were fantastic. But I can only find audio and video…
2) I get free market environmental defense (your Fraser Inst. stuff esp is great, if I recall). But what about internationally? If China is polluting the sh*t out of everything and their costs are far better — will they not dominate all competition, on a price basis? (see question #1, I know) … but does a non-Chinese company have any libertarian defense if the people of China are legally unable to sue the polluting company? (I understand there is a connection between my two questions but I am unable to articulate it clearly). Thank you for everything you do — and thank you for being my last (and best) resort for defending the free market when I am unable to do so myself! Matt PS I love what you are doing with libertarians for Trump. As I say daily, his destructive value is so substantial that his constructive value is rendered nearly moot. Thanks, ME
Dear ME: I’m sorry not to be able to be of much help to you on the first question. Virtually all economists, not only Austrians, even mainstreamers, support the doctrine of comparative advantage. Go, even, to any neoclassical econ text, and you’ll find a wealth of good explanations. It stems from David Ricardo, no Austrian, he, in 1817.
Re pollution, the best thing ever written on that subject is this: Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279; http://mises.org/story/2120; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf;
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution-0
True, Murray does not focus on international aspects of this, but I think I can extrapolate from what he says and apply it in that context. If China, or any other country, pollutes across its borders, on to the terrain of another nation, this is a violation of property rights. It is a trespass of smoke particles. There is no difference in principle between doing this and sending elsewhere bullets or bombs. It is an act of initiatory violence and, in this context, an act of war. That is how libertarians, I think, should view this. This does not mean I think the US should engage in a war with China on this matter; God forbid. The US does not go abroad, anywhere, with clean hands. But, still, it is difficult to deny that China, in this (hypothetical? no) case, is guilty of an act of aggression. If they want to pollute (heroically assuming this is what the people there want) they ought to do this well within their borders, so that even with strong winds, they keep their pollutants to themselves. I once wrote an essay that is a least somewhat relevant to this issue:
Block, Walter E. and Matthew Block. 2000. “Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control,” Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289-298; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127780_Toward_a_Universal_Libertarian_Theory_of_Gun_(Weapon)_Control_A_Spatial_and_Georgraphical_Analysis?ev=prf_pub
