In a debate hosted by the University of Buckingham in England, Daniel Hannan used an intriguing thought experiment to argue for free trade.
Hannan began, “Suppose that somebody invented a pill that would allow you to live in perfect health until the age of 120 and then die peacefully and painlessly.” He continued:
Such a pill, I put it to you, would put a lot of people out of work. It would be bad news for doctors and nurses. It would be catastrophic for the care-home industry. It would be extremely bad news for the medical-insurance industry. But would anyone regard those as valid arguments not to allow the pill to circulate? Now, ladies and gentlemen, here’s the kicker: Would it make any difference whether that pill had been invented in your own country or in somebody else’s? All of the arguments for protectionism and mercantilism boil down to ways of prohibiting the free circulation of that pill.
Of course, something that would make our lives that much better does not exist. But many things that would make our lives a little better do exist, and many of them are made in other countries. The degree is different, but the principle is the same: “You need to have a pretty good reason to come between the seller and the buyer, and the fact that the seller and the buyer are in different countries does not strike me as a good reason,” Hannan said.
He goes on to make a compelling moral argument for free trade. Watch Hannan’s full remarks here:
