Butterfly Wings by Charley Hardman

One Saturday in 1988 I met a flying cowboy. I was teaching at a music store in Southern Maryland, which meant that much of my time was spent waiting for students. I overheard the cowboy yapping about this and that to one of the salesmen, and when he started talking about flying, my ears perked up. A recent airline flight had tweaked my curiosity as the plane steered left and right approaching Denver, with a tight purpose and a smooth arrival. And here in front of me was a potential information source! (No World Wide Web in 1988.) What I didn't realize was that, once again, the direction of my life was going to change drastically through a chance meeting.

"Let me ask you something. How do these airline pilots know where they're going?"

Cowboy wasn't shy about sharing information. He grabbed a notebook and started drawing all sorts of diagrams and flight paths, putting the first of many aviation initialisms in my head: VOR (Very High Frequency Omnirange). Ten minutes later I had booked my first flight in a small plane, his Cessna 172 'Skyhawk'. A week later I'd taken that flight. Months later I was good pals with Cowboy and his family. A year or so after that I was a certified, government-inspected airplane driver. Though Cowboy wasn't my official flight instructor, he had introduced me to the wonders of real aviation (the kind you do yourself), and shown me the ropes during 6 or 7 unlogged lessons before I signed up with a flight school. Good stuff.

But there was a problem in trade relations. According to my Office of Trade Management, I was running a terrible deficit with the country of Cowboy. I was buying all these flight services while he bought nothing from me. Not good. Using Pat Buchanan logic, things were headed downhill, and damn fast. Matter of fact, the sky was falling. But I was happy. Cowboy was happy.

I'm sorry – did I forget to mention that the three of us had entered into a highly illegal yet prosperous free trade agreement? And unlike government's "free trade" agreements, this one really was a free trade agreement – no victims. I had a recording studio where Cowboy's guitar teacher was a client. I wanted flying lessons, Cowboy wanted guitar lessons, and his guitar teacher wanted recording time. We agreed on a rate of exchange for the three services, and off we went. There was no paper accounting; we just knew where things stood, and eventually we all settled up.

As usual, wealth was created out of exchange. But focusing on the relationship of two parties instead of seeing all three made it look unwealthy and unfair – an "imbalance." That's one of the fallacies of looking at the trade numbers between only two countries in a global market. Let's assume though that there's a clean "trade deficit" between two parties, even though that probably never happens. We could get geeky with the valid "they are buying our dollars" argument, but I'll leave that to the Mises.org crew, which excels at such things. My opinion is that utilitarian defenses are purely academic. I prefer to let things rest at the foundation, and then try to enjoy my life in the comfort of knowing that my principles are on target. That's not to deride those who like to argue about it; it's just that I have video games to play.

The principle at work in the triangle of trade for my flight lessons was simply that three parties entered into voluntary, non-aggressive agreements for the purpose of pleasing themselves. Social nirvana. All other discussion and accounting is distraction or an enjoyable exercise; there's nothing beyond that truth which must really be analyzed. And so it is with trade among countries. No, it's not all that simple. In fact, it's so complex that it can't be managed. But it is that true. As F.A. Hayek explained, any person or institution pretending to have the knowledge and skill necessary to manage an economy has merely fallen prey to fatal conceit.

In a world where it can be argued plausibly that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texarkana can affect the weather in Istanbul, it takes ignorance and hubris to think that one can pull the levers on commerce to any desired, positive effect. If the desired effect is prosperity for the masses, then the masses must pull their levers independently, as butterflies flap their wings. Imagine a government post, Controller of the Butterflies, where some officious toad purports to plan the flight paths and behavior of his subjects – for orderliness, fairness, and a firm goal.

He will fail. Worse, he will set in motion complex waves of distortion and inefficiency not limited to butterflies, while in the process destroying the futures of the best of them. They were doing their thing and didn't need any help. That's bad news for loser tyrants who want to at least wave their hands in time with the market and pretend they made it move. I've seen this trick, by the way. My dad used to spend evenings conducting the Stan Kenton Orchestra. Of course, they didn't know it, since they were on a vinyl LP on the other side of our living room, but it sure looked to us kids like he was doing it.

Things wouldn't be so bad if central planners limited themselves to such pastimes as waving their hands harmlessly. They do not, however. They interfere and ruin. How many times have you seen a manager on the local level whose disappearance, far from being merely unfelt, would enhance productivity and lower the payroll burden? These concepts are demonstrated often, yet something keeps the anti-traders coming back. Their arguments are doctrine even to the disinterested.

What factors may correctly override non-aggressive trade between private parties? I say "non-aggressive" for several reasons, not the least of which is that it tends to rule out argument killers like, "What if you want to buy nuclear bombs?" Anti-traders will tell you that we need a strong steel industry, that the horrible Chinese are plotting to completely remove our ability to manufacture trinkets for the checkout line at Wal-Mart, and that the US military is only 2,748 imported Sea Monkeys away from total oblivion. Those sea monkeys are really small, by the way; don't bother. They're not even real monkeys.

Although not a fair comparison, there's something about the anti-trader argument which reminds me of people who mourn the loss of ledger paper, sleeve protectors, and the jobs people had using them. One thing appears to really bother the anti-traders – well, a bunch of things really: The Facts of Life.

Businesses crumble. Jobs are lost. Jobs are created. Competition is global. People must be free to make personal choices. It's called Liberty, Pat. Shake hands already. Protectionism may sound good because you hear only the parts mentioned by its proponents. We are warned of lost jobs, scuttled defense potential (ha!), slave labor, and inferior chicken soup. So the mercantilists prescribe their witches' brew, and out come . . .

Trade ceilings that harm other countries while we pour money into the same countries, sometimes for the express purpose of encouraging commerce. Those countries and the people in them are more aware of the situation than most Americans would estimate. Shouldn't take a crystal ball to know that the US could use fewer people angry at it.
Tariffs that benefit specific US industries at the expense of US citizens, and harm other countries. See crystal ball comment above.
Unprotected American manufacturers unable to compete globally because they don't have access to foreign raw materials at undistorted prices.
Bureaucracies to support these wasteful, spiraling policies of mayhem. The policies are bad, but the bureaucracies are an abomination. They are, of course, part of the real purpose. See "Blockading Harbors for Free Trade", Chapter 9 in James Bovard's Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years.

Where else but in politics would somebody make an appeal to patriotism because another country wishes to sell the US products it wants, at absurdly low prices ("dumping")? The reasoning behind fighting the greatest gift another country could give the US is that the low prices won't last forever and that jobs will be lost. That's the same helpless, union-tainted nonsense we heard for years regarding the hated Bill Gates and Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The correct response to dumping? We'll take it! If things change down the line, then we change. If politicians cared about jobs being lost, you'd never hear a peep out of them in support of coercive, job-killing wage floors. As with most things politicians get their hands on, the unspoken promise is that they will coddle you in the soothing womb of permanent assurance. In a world where instability is feared, politicians promise security, dressed up in campaign fusillades of "time for a change" because the challengers acknowledge there's been no security during the previous term. If everybody's always looking for a change, does it ever get done right? Of course not. But success is always just around the corner for the subjugated, albeit in a classic, Greek, Sisyphean sorta way.

When utilitarian arguments fail, vile politicians appeal to morality. Country X is using slave labor. Country Y tortures dissidents. Why do we need politicians to make moral decisions for us? These choices must be made individually, with the confidence that their combined effects will be felt by the market. Trade interference is simply an extension of the popular delusion that it makes sense to have the fewest options. No politician is going to represent your opinions on everything, so why bother? You represent yourself. You make buying decisions considering everything that's important to you, and that's the most vote you can ask for. Cherish it. Cherish the complexity and fine granularity allowed when nobody speaks for you but you. Savor the wonderful things that can happen when the fine tolerances of the market are left to function with their natural delicacy.

Like the wings of a butterfly, Cowboy's chaotic appearance in the music store that day in 1988 triggered human action that was ready to strike but may not have. I may never have become a pilot. The combination of my recent curiosity, having the answer brought to my door, and the active suggestion that I could do something that I'd never even thought much about – those were sensitive conditions which had profoundly complex effects on the economy when left to mingle with voluntary human decisions and cooperation. At a time when I was scraping by (though supremely happy), I worked even harder to find the money to support my newfound passion for aviation. Perhaps my patronage at one business was the straw lifted from the camel's back. Maybe I walked into a flight school the day the owner was thinking of giving up. Maybe my dollars helped keep his school afloat, which kept his daughter in college, which allowed her to become a doctor, which allowed her to save my life when I was in a car accident on a desolate road shortly before she happened to drive by.

No, I'm not writing a cheap novel here. The point is that the possibilities are unseen, the complexity unmanageable, and the potential for destruction under central planning too great to allow. People must be free to live their lives. Anti-traders only conduct their business by putting on God suits and holding guns to heads. There is no good from market interference that doesn't come at somebody's greater expense elsewhere, usually insulated enough that it can't be traced to the responsible parties. The obvious goal of anti-traders is to tout their artificially created positives while hiding at all costs the devastation which inevitably results from market coercion.

Under coercion, gone are the happy and surprising relationships grown and cemented by commerce. Think of the friendly interactions because of trade and mutual dependence among disparate parties in your local environment – the same dependence which anti-traders point to as a pending disaster! Those with eyeballs connected to brain know it as the prevention of disaster; nothing contributes to peace better than knowing you will have lowered your standing while defeating your enemy. So why does the ruling class perpetually strain against the obvious and lead whole populations to ruin? One need only know that they do, and that we must resist.

When in doubt about trade issues, as with any other issue involving more than one person, simply ask yourself, "Is Liberty being served?" If it is not, you've jumped off a cliff into the land of those who would construct a better human or administer a free market, neither of which can be done. When you hear somebody say, "I'm all for free markets, but . . .", tell him to stop right there; there is no such thing as a managed free market. There is, however, unrestrained arrogance.

What can politicians do to help society? "Laissez-nous faire." (Leave us alone.) Men and women should stop running to government like children. The politicians will then wither away into the meaningless noise they are – less influential than the smallest fluttering wings, and, having nothing to trade, unable to afford a bowl of soup in a free market.