When a free state is defined as a place where individuals or private organisations can freely cooperate – including trade – means that “trade war” is a heat contradiction for anyone who is willing to have the hair that both parties accused. Free trade is peaceful trade.
Why does this definition of free country help? Why can’t individual behavior be separated from social life? For two reasons. First, a free society is desirable for its intentions that freedom and equal freedom, opportunities for its own success and general prosperity are desirable in itself. Second, methodological individualism that understands the concept of social interaction requirements – that is, starting the analysis from individual preferences, incentives, and self-interests. In the context of our topic, it is easy to see that individual motivations are inevitable. “France” and “Canada” thought they would suspend trading. Only methodological individualism can explain the resulting self-righteousness.
For example, there are legitimate exceptions to legitimate trade when employer contracts where the possibility of free trade is violated, or when trade or ownership of slaves is violated. Other limitations can be argued (see the prominent James Buchanan’s “Limits of Freedom” or Computation of Consent, Gordon Tullock). That a state may limit its own country’s freedom because it carries out the same constitution as invalid justifications in another state’s rules, at least in peacetime.
If you believe that a “country” trades, it all is different. The moments of reflection suggest that they are not. How can “France” trade with “Canada”? Neither requires a brain, arms or legs, so you can exchange and approach others with arms full of merchandise to exchange them. Even if he has only basic information in his right mind, he cannot believe that this will happen in reality. What most people (sadly) intuitively believe is that French political authority exchanges for Canadian political authority. Or, in reality, there is a possibility that the subject and their private association will trade with whom and under what conditions the political authority of the country you decide. And that there are no other positive or revivalable societies.
The outcome of a free society, the trade war is as similar as all-out war as possible. In many cases, two, if not almost always, wars in human history were closely related. The French and Spanish rulers could do so to engage in war in their interests. It hardly matters whether the ruler is elected or not. What matters is the scope and scope of their power. But, for example, note how essential methodological individualism is to explain the behavior of a ruler.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
“Trade War” by ChatGpt with sub-guidance
