Robinson Crusoe and Free Trade; F. Bastiat

[38 ] both ·Robinson and Friday. They walked away from the foreigner to discuss his offer in private. It soon developed that Friday was in favor of the trade, and Crusoe was opposed. Their reasoning went somewhat as follows: Robinson pointed out to Friday that if they accepted the foreigner's offer, their own hunting industry would thereby be ruined. In turn, Friday pointed out to Robin son that they would still have as much game to eat as they now had. True, they would have to work longer at agriculture, but they would still save three hours of labor on the total transaction. Then Robinson argued that the three hours of saved labor was not a gain but a loss, since everybody knows that labor is wealth. Anyway, what would they do with those three hours? Friday replied that they could use them to fish, or to improve their house, or to read, or merely to loaf. But Robinson was too firmly grounded in the labor the ory of protectionism to be convinced. He honestly be lieved that labor itself (rather than the net product of that labor) is the measure of wealth.

Political Expediency Robinson then added that there were also political reasons for rejecting the offer of the perfidious foreigner. For example, the foreigner wouldn't make the offer un less he expected to gain from it. Friday agreed, but pointed out that they also would gain from the trade. [39 ] Next, Robinson explained to Friday that this trade would make them dependent on the foreigner. Again Friday agreed, but argued that the foreigner would like wise be dependent on them. Then Robinson pointed out that the foreigner might learn to grow his own vegetables on his own island. If that happened, he would no longer bring game to them, and they might starve. Or, even worse, he might bring vegetables as well as game, and thus destroy two of their industries instead of merely one. Friday was of the opinion that if the trade ceased altogether, they would be no worse off than now. And if the foreigner brought both game and vegetables, they would then have to produce something else to exchange with him.

But Robinson thought that Friday's arguments were impractical and based on mere theory. So, refusing to listen further, he returned to the foreigner, and spoke as follows: "Stranger, before we accept your offer, we must be sure of two things. First, you must assure us that your island is not richer in game than is ours, for we wish to fight with equal weapons. Second, since in all exchange there is necessarily a winner and a loser, you must lose by the exchange. Now what do you say to that?" "Nothing," said the foreigner. And laughing loudly, he regained his canoe and paddled away. [40 ] THE IMPORTANCE OF AWE AN INDIVIDUAL does not adopt authoritarian ways because he knows so little. More likely than not, he behaves in this manner because he is unaware of how little he knows -unaware of the significance that his personal stock of knowledge has in the context of the whole. But, first, what is meant by an authoritarian? Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Peron qualify all right. The list, however, goes far beyond the few who have gained renown as political tyrants. And it includes others in addition to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Al Capone, racketeering labor and business leaders, and the like who become governments on their own terms. Further, the list includes more than the supporters of political plunder those who use the police force to take from some and give to others; those who employ violence to support the claim that their ways of. disposing of the fruits of your labor are better than your ways. The list must also in clude the intellectual authoritarians, those believing that all who do not see eye-to-eye with them are to that extent "off beam"-or fools. The authoritarians are a numerous loti Mr. Read is President of the Foundation for Economic Education.