An extra thought

Hey. Just wanted to add something for all the people who think free trade is anything that needs to be imposed on countries one to another, and is therefor immoral. In fact there is no "New World Order" required; no two or more free peoples can avoid becoming dependent on one another perfectly naturally over the longterm as each assumes its ideal economic roles and concedes to the other work its citizens are less suited to perform. Freedom does not need to be imposed on anybody. Neither does every nation need to embrace freedom for an interdpendance scenario to work. Even if only two nations allow their economies to become completely (or even just significantly) free and unregulated, those two economies will more than likely merge in short order, irrespective of the distance between them. Citizens of each will not find many other better places to do business. If they've got natural resources or else valuable, they may not find any place better at all. They will invest primarily in each other and become richer together. They will also inevitably attract investments from less free countries whose eantrepanuers feel stifled.

Subsidies and tariffs and other forms of protectionism may persist in many other countries, and these will inevitably both tempt capital away (subsidies) and make trade somewhat difficult (tariffs) for any economically free country, but only at literally everyone's expense. Subsidies and tariffs distort the entire world market and make that entire market less efficient for everybody, including the nation engaging in this protectionism. It makes no sense, therefor, to answer protectionism with more protectionism like countries presently do. It's only going to make things worse.

And of course economic freedom shouldn't be imposed by any government on its own subjects, either. I do not think property is an inalienable right, myself. I used to, but have come to respect the idea more because it works than because it is moral. Or better, it's moral because it works. If anyone thinks it doesn't, they should be able to rally votes to elect a non-capitalist economy if that's what the people want. But democracy and social/political freedom works too, and I don't believe any country is justified dispensing with them, no matter how unpopular they may be. It is not any more reightous to impose socialism than capitalism, and citizens of either must be free to speak their mind and organize peaceful counter-movements. And if these prove unsuccessful, they must be allowed to leave the country with minimal difficulty if they are physically able. I would not lightly forgive a country where these freedoms are absent. Humans seem to be instinctually afraid of economic freedom, so we can forgive its nearly universal absence if we agree it's a good thing.