Archfiend MDenham wrote:
You can have a perfectly good government that says "no, thank you, we'll keep our stuff to ourselves" in one of two ways - either they choose not to engage in international trade (cf. numerous isolationist governments throughout history), or there's nobody to engage in international trade with (i.e. "world government").
Ok. But who's making the decision not to trade with anyone else? That's right! It's the government... You even used the term "isolationist government(s)" and still managed to miss this point.
If you have any government at all, that government will be legally empowered to regulate trade, both internally and internationally. Has to. It could certainly choose to say "We're not going to trade with anyone". It could even say "Trade with anyone you like!". But in any case, it's ultimately empowered to make that decision. It's inherent in the fact that you have a government in the first place.
Quote:
Domestic trade? Yes, I agree that that belongs on the list. International trade, however, is not a "must", it's a "nice to have" for any country capable of self-sufficiency (read: those that have enough land space to both support agriculture to feed everyone and still have room for housing, intrastate commerce, power generation, &c. &c. &c.).
Sure. But that's like arguing that a soapbox doesn't need wheels unless it's been converted for use in a derby, so therefore the decision to put wheels on it isn't important. We're talking about legitimate powers of a government. If there is international trade, and there is a government, that government *must* be empowered to regulate that trade. Even if it chooses not to enforce any regulation at all, it's still making that choice.
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "nice to have". You seem to be thinking I'm saying "if you're able to". That's not it at all. I'm talking about things that you can do, but don't have to, versus things that you can do and must do if you are able. The latter are things government must control. If there is any trade at all, government must be empowered to regulate it. If there are laws at all, government must set them. If there is a national military, the government must be in control of it.
If there is a program to feed the hungry, does it have to be controlled by the government? No.
See the difference? The citizens of a nation cannot fight a war without the government running the military that fights it. They can't trade goods with another nation without the government having some control and regulation over that trade. They can give money to the poor. They can help the homeless. They can obtain medical care for themselves and their families. They don't need a government to do these things. It might be "nice to have" a government that provides them, but it's not required that government do these things.
Getting it yet? I know it's a hard concept to grasp if you've never been taught it properly, and most educations today don't include this sort of philosophical discourse on the requirements of a state (ie: what a state must do to be a state). But to those of us who were taught these things, it's *really* obvious which things need to come from government, and which things don't.
