For discussion, we assume that the Mill nationalist expression “our national resources” has meaning. You are a resource – physical resources, capital, talent, expertise, etc. – conclude that a kind of “public good” belongs to a member of the country, not a “national.”
It is considered the first contradiction. Nationalists are usually merchantists. They want to maximize the import and export of “protective” adjustables. However, this means using “natural resources” to use goods aimed at foreigners (definition of exports) and using state enforcement (customer duties and other barriers) to limit the consumption of production of production from foreigners’ own national resources. The contradiction is clear. To be constructed, nationalists must do the maximum imports and minimum exports.
The Nationalist Court has rebutted that it exported production to “our” production from “our” national resources and to import foreign production from national resources. If that is true, “we” would want the best trade, namely, as much imports and fewer exports as possible. But why do “we” want to do this? Answering by invoking the advantages of comparative advantages and trade creates a second contradiction (which is one institution rather than purely logical). For that time, why would “we” limit imports to what the government’s political and bureaucratic geniuses consider to be showing? Economic freedom is generally more efficient than government planning or industrial policy.
What does “efficient” mean? Different schools of economic thinking provide a variety of answers. Maximizes economic benefits measured by the heat of money (Neoclassical mainstream school). Maximizing social welfare (welfare economics); Supporting economic growth and prosperity (Adam Smith and Classical Economics). “You’ll increase[ing] Opportunities for randomly chosen unknowns” (Friedrich Hayek); individual actions (see, e.g., Robert Sugden, Robert Sugden, Reginics of Rights, cooperation, welfare, or Anthony de Jasay).
The result of these individualistic theories is that the property of “our national resources” is held by dozens of individuals by individuals, in contrast to commonality (a legal term meaning “common”). Otherwise, the main agent prevents efficient use of resources on the Pareto Frontier. (See Chapter 13 of Jasai’s Justice and His Environment.) Those who belong to everyone belong to no one other than the state.
Nationalism, in rebuttal, refers to the satisfaction of the national group. This actually means its majority or plurality. Nationalism is a form of collectivism. In reality, the satisfaction of an integrated amount of money is to satisfy the preferences of the ruler and its political supporters.
In a free society, “national resources” are private. (Perhaps contractual discussions can justify exceptions such as communal land, streets, roads, etc., but those are the exceptions.) Transactions from the production of private resources are free to be open to the individual and their private organizations to act, at least in peacetime.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Embracing our national collection tree
