It’s one thing for the current primary resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to refer to others in subhuman terms for rhetorical purposes. It’s quite another thing to treat them as such. No, the following isn’t about immigration policy—it’s about the dehumanizing act of imposing tariffs.
Mainstream economists and policymakers make value judgments often based on the utilitarian ethical framework of cost-benefit analysis to determine the “right” course of action. For democratically-elected politicians, part of the benefit side of this equation is the metric of electoral votes. Indeed, if a policy hurts society broadly, but brings in key constituencies that are vital for electoral success, then those hurt may be damned for being on the wrong side of the equation in the political calculus.
While scrolling through X, Facebook, or even LinkedIn these days, you’ll find enormous amounts of digital ink spilt on justifications for tariff policies. Some argue that Trump’s moves are analogous to engaging in “Just War”—if there really is such a thing. This idea has been put forward by James E. Hartley. The argument goes, that to protect the more vulnerable in our American economy—as though they are “infants,” perhaps—it’s appropriate to levy tariffs as a protectionist measure. After all, isn’t it essential to true justice to protect the weak? Clearly, Hartley and others appeal to a value judgement about shielding the weak from alleged attacks from other competitors. Further, to justify the “Just Tariff” theory, proponents of the injustice of high tariffs currently imposed on American goods by other nations. Some among the Trump administration claim that US workers have been wronged, and the only way to fix it is to retaliate and give others a taste of their own medicine—not exactly turning the other cheek.
David Hebert has provided a critique of Hartley’s approach and counters by pointing out—correctly—that whenever Hartley’s theory has been deployed, that the historic record is rife with its failures. What’s more, Hebert explains that “the political and economic reality is such that the theory is inapplicable in the real world”—correct again. He then calls for the abandonment of the use of tariffs as an economic or political tool altogether—a sensible conclusion indeed!
While I’m in full agreement with Hebert’s conclusion, there’s a question that remains unanswered—especially if one doesn’t hold to a utilitarian or consequentialist view of what is right or wrong. That is: Even if tariffs are deemed inappropriate because the costs to some are higher than to others, or because they haven’t proved to “work” in the past, are they moral? Here is where the economist may weigh in as a moral philosopher.
While some economists—most notably those of the Austrian School—have attempted to engage in economic science as a value-free activity, it seems that no one has been able to do this perfectly.
I never had the privilege of meeting Gary North. I wish that I had. Nonetheless, this noted economist and theologian, explained how the ethics of property rights are an essential feature of what it means to be human. I will take it a step further.
For North—and no less than Thomas Jefferson himself—the Creator has “endowed” humans with a right and presumably the capacity to pursue life, liberty, and property. North specifically claimed that “man is uniquely assigned the tasks of dominion” (emphasis added) and that, “Man is made in God’s image, and he is to exercise dominion in God’s name” (emphasis added). The argument goes that if humankind has been crafted to exercise dominion through property rights, then to prevent your neighbor from exercising their property rights is to cause them to break God’s command. Once again, I find myself in agreement.
The existence and use of taxation broadly, and of tariffs specifically are immoral. They are definitively property rights violations through the use of violence and threats. Any government deploying this so-called policy tool is trespassing upon property rights. As a result, human beings are in a word: dehumanized.
