Issue Of Free Trade With China example essay topic

No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service For the past few months, I have been focusing on the events and the principles behind the founding of our nation. During these studies, I often wondered how some of the ideas we cling to became entrenched in our paradigms of perception. For instance, there are words that have become taboo because of the ways they have been used. They are so taboo, in fact, that it has become nearly impossible to use the words constructively, because using them either shuts off the mechanism in the brain that controls attention span, or their mentioning automatically invites a defensive posture. Two of the unwitting victims are the words 'politics' and 'discrimination. ' The demise of valid uses of these words is sadly apparent when we discuss the issue of 'free trade' with China.

First, since negotiations with foreign governments can only justly and efficiently be done through representation of our own government, the issue inherently involves politics. There is no way of getting around it. Second, the decision is really whether or not to discriminate against the Chinese government fundamentally on the basis that we do not agree with their methods of controlling internal civil affairs. Are we right to presume we have the authority to judge the actions of a foreign government when our own government has, in fact, from time to time, been guilty of many of the same things we accuse the Chinese government of doing? One might be inclined to profess that we have no authority to judge, lest we open up the possibility of allowing ourselves to be judged. However, if we are just and consistent, is that Dickens 2 such a terrible proposition?

While America is proud of its diversity, that diversity should not be used to steal our attention from the common, unifying principles, which sets America apart from the rest of the world. They are the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Without those principles, we have no claim to freedom, so I'm not certain why there is an effort to categorically reject them. Retail establishments are apt to decide with whom they will do business based on criteria that is not necessarily relevant to a person's quality or depth of character.

Patrons must be wearing certain articles of clothing, or they are not admitted. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Many of the more highly rated restaurants even require a coat and tie for their customers. Such companies discriminate against those who do not wish to conform to a dress code they feel is acceptable. How many people talk to every person they pass on the street -- or even make an attempt at eye contact?

They are discriminating in whom they wish to associate. Discrimination isn't a bad thing when we understand the literal definition of the word. At the very least, it's easy to recognize, under those terms, that discrimination is allowed (and even embraced) in our society, and everybody, in one way or another, does it. So if discrimination with regards to business is acceptable in some circumstances, we must analyze under which conditions discrimination against another country would be acceptable. Our actions are not just if they are arbitrary, therefore we must determine what principles apply to trade with others so that we may act judiciously in the application of our standards.

We must consider America's best interest, what is good for the security and prosperity of America. The reason we must look at it with that scope of priority is because our wealth is meaningless and fragile if we are constantly in danger of being destroyed. Think of the money we could generate if we would only sell a few hundred nuclear missiles to China. We don't do that however, Dickens 3 because it would impose a needless and permanent danger on our citizens. I think it's clear that trading certain technologies with rival nations must always be closely monitored, so that we don't accidentally, or otherwise, transfer information to a country that any government or group could use to damage our nation or our people, for which we would not be able to protect ourselves.

It should be self-evident that sort of trade would be unacceptable. Other nations can damage us in hundreds of ways. A physical hazard may be caused by transferring technology, as has already occurred, that allows rival nations to more accurately target our nation with ballistic missiles, or by giving the means to other countries to shut down vital defense mechanisms by hacking into our defense computer systems. The other types of hazards, morale and moral, can directly or indirectly lead to a physical hazard. Regarding morale hazards, it's easy to demonstrate that damage to morale can hurt us physically. For instance, how successful will a nation be in war if it does not have the will to fight?

If the nation doesn't have the will to fight, then it will be overcome by another force, regardless of the size of that force. Fidel Castro could march into Washington and take it over today if we stood by and did nothing to fight him off. We would, though, fight him off, because we are committed, whether we fully understand it or not, to our republic. Moral hazards, on the other hand, are a little tougher to explain, given the current state of affairs in America, where the mere mentioning of morality immediately causes discontent because of its implications of religious judgment. Therefore, we must examine this hazard more than the others for the purpose of engendering comprehension. Like the word 'discrimination,' morality is a sorely misunderstood word.

Morality is nothing but adhering to a set of principles which dictates the difference between right and wrong. That being said, it is also true that doing Dickens 4 something is either right or wrong, but doesn't necessarily have to be 'good' or 'evil. ' Certainly there can be reasonably good and tangible benefits to nearly any action we would consider taking as a nation. Just think of the economic boom we would experience if we would only invade the entire Middle East and take over their oil fields. We would not do this because the economic benefits would not be as great as first appears due to the worldwide recoil to our actions, but also we would not do so because, barring an attack by an enemy on our allies or our country, we typically restrain from invading other nations's overeignty uninvited (Kosovo notwithstanding). The reason we do or don't follow through is, to us, it is wrong when we hold the action up to the scrutiny of our collective morality.

To be moral is basically to constantly do what is right. To abandon morality is to abandon the standards to which we judge what is right. Given that morality is, to some measure, subjective, we must therefore, instead of cringing when we hear the words 'moral' or 'morality,' attempt to examine what the speaker is saying to see if it also applies to our set of morals, and why. That is not 'imposing morality,' but is simply utilizing our own experience and sense of justice in applying a standard, which controls our actions as a nation.

A moral hazard may be present when something occurs which threatens the framework of our society and how it functions with respect to our morality. How could that possibly happen? It happens every day. Any situation, which disrupts the founding principles of which we claim any dignity and liberty at all, would be a moral hazard.

We claim to be created equally free and independent (Virginia State Constitution, based on previous works of philosophy, which later was used as a reference in writing our Declaration of Independence). So if we act, or if we allow government to act, in detriment to these principles with respect to trade, we cannot hope to claim Dickens 5 these principles if government decides to contravene them with respect to us. Either it is right for government to do this, or it is wrong. If it is not wrong, then it is right.

If it is not right, then it is wrong. 'Good' or 'evil' doesn't even come into the mix, although I believe nothing that is right will be 'evil,' and just because something is 'good' doesn't mean it is right. With China, there are several cases made in favor of free trade. Among them are: 1.

Trade with China will lead to increased prosperity for Americans. 2. Trade with China will increase prosperity for impoverished Chinese. 3. Trade with China will put a foothold of freedom into a communist, totalitarian state that will outlast and overcome the current government there.

First of all, the question of renewing China's Most Favored Nation Status comes up every year. The current issue in debate is whether or not to permanently normalize trade relations so that Congress does not have to revisit and be held accountable to this issue annually. So basically, if this legislation passes through the Senate, the prosperity of everyday Americans will not change. What it will do is send a message to American companies that America is in it to stay, and if those companies can arrange a deal to move their manufacturing plants to China and thereby receive cheaper labor for their money, then they can be assured that their enterprise is not constantly under the gun by a meddlesome Congress.

That brings me right to my next point. Since American companies will go over to China, it makes sense that perhaps many Chinese will get jobs. With jobs, comes money. The problem with that supposition is that it assumes that those people have control over their own incomes and have the freedom to barter and negotiate deals in order to secure more money for Dickens 6 themselves. They don't. The Chinese government has more control over the income of its people than the American government does over its citizens.

Actually, it has the same amount of control (which is total), but fewer consequences for taking too much. The Chinese, for instance, can't vote anyone out of office for taking too much of the money they make. Additionally, the Chinese government can and does use the money generated from commerce (just as America does) to build their own military. It then has historically used its military to do such things as steal American nuclear technology, build nuclear missiles, threaten the people in Taiwan, and threaten us if we dare protect them.

The final point of pro-free traders bears thinking on, because if we are to believe in the principles which make America great, then we must believe that those principles of unalienable rights apply to all men, whether or not their governments allow the propagation of such ideas. We undoubtedly collectively wish for other governments to respect those principles as well, because ultimately, it will lead to a more stable, peaceful world, where our servicemen and women would not be subjected to lengthy and destructive conflicts halfway around the world. That is to say that our security is threatened if other countries do not adhere to a certain basic ideology that all men were created equal and have the ability and the natural right to govern themselves. We must consider, therefore, the best course of action to accomplish that end.

If every person in China has access to the Internet, proponents of free trade argue, ideas of freedom would get through and people would begin to demand the things to which they are entitled. However, hardly any one of China's one billion people has access to the Internet, and they won't as long as the current government stays in place. Dickens 7 So free trade in the name of liberty sounds wonderful on the surface, until we realize that there already has been a vast movement in China to achieve that very thing. I get goose bumps when I remember the video of a lone Chinese person staring down a massive tank during the Tien namen Square crackdown in 1989. It wasn't free trade that instilled that sort of will. Conversely, it was precisely materials, money, and technology gathered from many countries that allowed the military to build and maintain those tanks and other instruments of oppression.

Does anyone remember the document, which the activists used to justify their demands for universal recognition of liberty? It was our Declaration of Independence. Popular movements and revolutions have always been fueled by ideology and a solemn dedication to principle. Once that principle has been instilled, the will of the Chinese to fight will grow as their resentment toward their oppressors festers. We will never solve the plight of the Chinese by throwing money to an area where we have no control.

In fact, in this case, it will most likely hurt. The only way we can dare hope to effect reform is to provide an example of liberty and justice that will bring happiness and prosperity to all of our people, and to withhold access to our marketplace and manufacturing until the Chinese government decides to institute changes so that the people can govern themselves. Once they have that freedom, they will understand the value of it, and they will not relinquish it -- Not for all the tea in China..