These sections of the article came to my attention because it speaks to today.

‘No state can successfully undertake to extend its jurisdiction unless its internal vitality is high, so that it has surplus energy to dispose of.

England, as a penalty of her greatness, finds herself in all parts of the world face-to-face with the necessity of maintaining her jurisdiction and of extending it in order to maintain it. When she does so she finds herself only extending law and order for the benefit of everybody. It is only in circumstances like hers that the burdens have any compensation.’

America’s internal vitality and surplus energy is draining because of its expansionist policies. America is finding it self in all parts of the world with the necessity of maintaining jurisdiction and of extending it in order to maintain it. And more often than not America finds itself extending law and order for the benefit of everybody.

If the outcome of these expeditions are enlightened societies where private property is better respected and upheld than they where before, then there would be more prosperity in the world thus making the whole exercise worthwhile.

Pavan,

You seem to assume that it is possible that a country or region NOT have a comparative advantage and so benefit from free trade. I’m pretty sure this is theoretically impossible, and if not, then at the very least prohibitively unlikely. Why would people live in a region which has nothing to offer over it’s alternatives? The only reason I can think of is that these arbitrary national boundries prevent them from moving. That is hardly a case for the rejection of free trade.

As far as how long it takes for these effects to catch on, two points:

A: I don’t see how this matters, the only people who will be harmed by free trade are those benefiting from the compulsory nature of restricted trade. I do not conceive any way in which the whole of a society could suffer as result of shedding restrictions on their freedom. Even if the benefits did take generations for the benefits to acrue to whatever level of improvement you think nessecary to justify the adoption of free trade (as if such justification were necessary), the improvement will begin instantly. Every member of that society will have more options available to choose from than they previously had… this can only be a good thing, save for maybe your prohibitively unlikely scenario of NO competitive advantage…even then it’s be a push.

B: I don’t think it takes that long. Why would businesses take generations to exploit a profit opportunity that a newly free-trade area with competitive advantages would offer? Further, don’t we see examples where societies saw much more rapid improvement then you seem to suggest would be the case. Wouldn’t modern day China and India (who’ve moved distinctly, though not entirely by any means, in the direction of free trade) be excellent examples of how the benefits become very clear on the order of a few years, not a few decades or generations?

The way there’s a non-fallacy to early territorial expansion of the Old World into the New World due to the fact that few little land of the New World was held in private ownership and was thus free to be homesteaded.