[nostrademons]

The idea that governments should get out of the way of free trade across borders, and that the policies they make only serve to make the economy less efficient. The backdrop for the economy should be the world, and not the nation. Within it, firms should feel free to transact with whoever gets the job done best.

[kev009]

That seems orthogonal to being part of a league of nations. In practice it should be easier to reduce regulation with increased sovereignty, but again there is no direct causation. The benefit of a league is collective bargaining, and potential efficiencies like standardization. The downsides are effectively the unintended consequences of that.

[foxygen]

Are we pretending the US/NATO hasn't been interfering with the world's economy for the past decades? Or free trade here means the US being the sheriff of the world, forcing everyone else to use their currency, and bringing "freedom and democracy" to whoever thinks of challenging that?

[nostrademons]

There's plenty that the U.S. government does that it shouldn't do, and it's out of scope for this discussion.

When it comes to globalization, there is a legit role for hegemonic military power, and it's to keep trade lanes open. So for example, interdicting Somali pirates or Houthi rebels or keeping the Straight of Hormuz open would be legit uses of force. Sinking suspected drug boats in the Caribbean or imposing their own blockade would not be. Providing a stable currency is legit, using that currency to impose sanctions on countries or individuals that do things you do not like is not legit.

There is another conversation to be had about the use of power and how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves, but that is another conversation, not for this thread.

[foxygen]

The US did not create a neutral global free market. It created and maintains a US-centered international order that is relatively open for trade when openness aligns with American strategic interests and becomes coercive when it does not.

> Providing a stable currency is legit

The US does not "provide" a stable currency, it outright forces everyone to use it.

> how enforcing your ideals often comes into conflict with the values of your ideals themselves

The US/NATO couldn't care less about enforcing their "ideals". This is all about economic gain. It is very odd how liberal ideals must be enforced upon Iran, but not upon Saudi Arabia, which is a US ally, no?

> but that is another conversation, not for this thread

So discussing the use of force in the global economy is not fit for a thread about free-trade?