The “National Interest” vs. Freedom of Trade

Recently Robert Fulford was rightfully lamenting in a National Post column that after a quarter century since the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement was ratified, the trade between the two countries is anything but free.

According to Fulford, only government procurement, a few other processes, and financial services were made more convenient with the so called Free Trade Agreement, and everything else remained as unfree as before. The usual culprits for such a sorry state are typically considered to be higher costs (due to higher wages, longer transportation distances, interprovincial tariffs and other taxes, etc.) and lower productivity in Canada. But after discovering that Halls cough drops—made in Canada—cost almost twice as much in Canada ($2.87) than in the U.S. ($1.47), Fulford dismissed all the typical explanations as insufficient and pointed his finger at “interest groups, lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats” who like the “unfair” trade policy and maintain it decade after decade, while the rest of us are helpless to do anything about it.

While it is true that interest groups and lobbyists, such as businesses wanting government protection against foreign competition or trade unionists wanting government protection of jobs, influence the perpetuation of unfree trade. And politicians and bureaucrats who want to maintain their positions also help continue the status quo of protectionism. However, they are not the fundamental cause of unfree trade, and the rest of us are not as helpless when it comes to influencing freedom to trade as Robert Fulford suggests.

The opposition to free trade stems from the mistaken idea that it is contrary to the self-interest of the citizens of a country (or a state or a province). In other words, the opponents of free trade fail to grasp the principle of freedom, which includes the freedom of trade, as essential to a person’s self-interest. As an example, the Founding Fathers of America were opposed to taxation but favored tariffs—another form of tax, failing to see them as contradicting individual rights they otherwise promoted. This mistaken logic has perpetuated itself, not only in America, but most other countries in the world. Such thinking fails to integrate self-interest and freedom.

One the most significant modern-day example demonstrating the harmful effects of protectionism on self-interest is the softwood lumber dispute between the United States and Canada. The Canadian government subsidizes and regulates the country’s softwood lumber industry, and the American government counters by imposing a tariff on Canadian softwood lumber imports because of the unfair advantage of the subsidized Canadian producers. If the Canadian and American governments refrained from interfering with the softwood lumber industry and adhered to the principle of free trade, allowing the market to determine prices, the producers in both countries would have to increase their efficiency and productivity in order to compete.

If free trade prevailed, production of softwood lumber and all other goods would take place where it could be done most efficiently, at the lowest cost. This would mean companies would specialize in providing goods and services where they have a comparative advantage, regardless in which country they are located. This would mean intense competition, innovation, and maximum wealth creation, translating into economic growth, job opportunities, lower prices and better quality of products and services. In other words, free trade would serve the interests of everyone: producers, employees, and consumers.

The idea of some kind of collective national interest is mistaken: having products manufactured in the United States or in Canada is not inherently in the interest of Americans or Canadians; having products manufactured wherever it can be done most efficiently—provided the markets are free—is. We are helpless against anti-free trade activists, lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats only when we fall for their argument that protectionism is in our interest. If we passively accept the idea that our freedom, including freedom to trade, should be limited and willingly pay prices twice as high as free market prices, we can only blame ourselves. Instead, we should promote the principle of free trade as essential to everyone’s self-interest whenever and wherever we can.

  • Gayle Parker

    Jaana, your points about free trade are dead right. Moreover, I am a snow bird and now that I’m back in Canada I have sticker shock big time!! A small carton of dried roasted almonds from Vons (Safeway in Calgary) is 7,99 in the US but 12.99 in Calgary!!!

    Moreover though, I submit the problem is more fundamental. In order to cure this inflation and distortion of market prices, the government must be barred completely from engaging in any sector of the economy at all. That includes subsidies, soft loans, grants, purchasing of lands, etc. Any participation of the government by way of incentives with carrots, must be prohibited in order for a market to thrive. I would agree with Ayn Rand that the proper role of government should be restricted to the protection of all from the initiation of force from others (including the government). There must be a restriction and a complete separation of the government from the economy. Then no lumber industry would be favored and no citrus farmer either. The playing field would be leveled based on the one thing that makes markets work – real opportunity for the merit of the worker and nothing else. Can you just imagine how our Western countries would thrive, how many jobs would open up and how many winners would be born with a market free from all government intervention. We would be the envy of the entire world!

  • Threnody

    While true, we the people have elective force only in the United States, and here, really only choose between various versions of statists.
    A good question is what should our trade policy be with another country that DOES subsidize a particular industry in their country. We can not directly change their interventionist policies. We ought not leave the trade policy completely open and let our own industry by destroyed by the unfair competition of a foreign govt supported industry. So the historical solution has been tariffs or regulation of the quantity of a particular import. Frankly, if we do not wish to proceed into an all out trade war with the other country to change their unfair intervention, then I think we ARE left with the historically chosen options.
    So the real question is: When another government wishes to subsidize a particular industry, should we then use ALL methods of leverage to get them to change that policy? Are we willing to go to the mat for freedom?