>Even the most committed free marketer will readily acknowledge an exception for national security. Trade should generally be free, for example, but you’ll rarely see free traders opposing government subsidies to and/or restrictions on defense-related goods like tanks or fighter jets. We’re always quick to add, however, that security exceptions should be limited, transparent, and well-justified, and that policymakers and the public should still scrutinize claims that X or Y is needed on national security grounds. Indeed, that national security is an exception granted by stalwart free marketers also means it’s ripe for abuse by those seeking a government-aided advantage over their competition, customers, or suppliers. And history is littered with politicians, companies, and unions using “national security” as an empty (often comical) excuse for the government to block imports, spend taxpayer dollars, or otherwise intervene in the economy in ways that benefit them alone, economically or politically, at our expense—and often the nation’s expense too.
CATO Institute’s vice president of general economics and Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies Scott Lincicome wrote this in a piece for The Dispatch. Wanted to see what the people here think about it
1 Comment
I posted this [in the DT](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/WJ18BfoI8o) so I figured I’d post it here
!ping SNEK&DEV-ECON&CONTAINERS
>Even the most committed free marketer will readily acknowledge an exception for national security. Trade should generally be free, for example, but you’ll rarely see free traders opposing government subsidies to and/or restrictions on defense-related goods like tanks or fighter jets. We’re always quick to add, however, that security exceptions should be limited, transparent, and well-justified, and that policymakers and the public should still scrutinize claims that X or Y is needed on national security grounds. Indeed, that national security is an exception granted by stalwart free marketers also means it’s ripe for abuse by those seeking a government-aided advantage over their competition, customers, or suppliers. And history is littered with politicians, companies, and unions using “national security” as an empty (often comical) excuse for the government to block imports, spend taxpayer dollars, or otherwise intervene in the economy in ways that benefit them alone, economically or politically, at our expense—and often the nation’s expense too.
CATO Institute’s vice president of general economics and Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies Scott Lincicome wrote this in a piece for The Dispatch. Wanted to see what the people here think about it