 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. Sometimes, a lot of times when we talk about markets, we're talking about in our own jurisdiction, but sometimes that gets a little bit complicated when you start talking about international trade and what kind of restrictions, if any, there should be on international trade. And this brings up a story recently, and maybe we can get the visual up on that, but it says Walmart sparks public outcry in China over products from Xinjiang. And so that's a province in China where there have been, I guess, the problems with human rights abuses to this group called the Uighurs that I guess are Muslim people living in China who are, I guess, not being treated very well by the government there. And so recently, Joe Biden actually put some trade restrictions against products coming from those countries because, or from that area, because of these human rights abuses. And so some of our big box stores that happen to be in China are following these same restrictions with some of the products they sell in China, which is what this particular story is about. So some of the people in China are kind of upset about seeing these product restrictions in the stores, but it brings up the larger question, though, too, and that's it. For libertarians, is there a situation where we should have restrictions on trade or is that something that people should all make at the individual level? Because I can certainly see there being instances where maybe there's some sort of a pollution problem where one country is ignoring whatever the pollution standards are the rest of the world and maybe they're polluting the ocean and so they get a cheaper product and then they send it here and then we all buy it thinking what a bargain, but they're actually causing maybe some kind of a pollution issue, sort of a hidden third party cost going on there. So it seems like maybe there's some situations, but it's hard to say, and of course this was a human rights abuse in this particular case. What do you guys think about that? What's the right call for when should a government get involved in international trade? Well, Simon Black had a really good article about the imbecile king, who was King Charles II, took over his throne at the age of three. He was an inbred kid with all kinds of issues, including he was just stupid. I mean, so we have an imbecile king also here in America. And so he took over the Spanish Empire when it was crumbling and promptly being dumb as a rock, put his foot, the pedal to the metal when he drove Spain off of the proverbial cliff into oblivion, and then they lost their superpower status and their, you know, the most powerful nation in the world took over later by France, and then France had theirs taken over by England, and then the US finally came and took it away from the UK. So, but mainly a good thing that they did in Spain, was they restricted trade to the point that from the new world, they lost 75% of their trade. So this is nothing new, this whole restrictions on trade. So maybe they had different reasons to restrict trade, but you know, it's a recipe for fiscal disaster, and I don't care if it's, oh, what about Africa? Why are we buying these batteries that's going into all these cars that are being pushed by the Biden administration? Oh, the imbecile king to go into all these future electric cars, and of course they go into our iPhones and everything else, and yet they're mined by these little kids and under horrible, deplorable conditions and so on and so on and so on. I mean, you could make excuses to ban anything nowadays because everything comes from multiple places all over the planet, a pencil, where do you get the lead? Where do you get the paint that goes to make it yellow? Where's that come from? Where's the wood come from and who mines it? Some little kid that's pulling a cart down some hill? I don't know, so you, if you're on your high horse can coerce or can have an effect on government to get rid of anything and everything, okay? You don't want your iPhone anymore? Okay, government can do that. So it's a recipe for fiscal suicide, and which we've already had way more than we need at this point. So we don't need King Charles II to drive the government over a cliff at 1,000 miles an hour, okay, we just don't need that. And so, no, we don't need that stuff. And if you want it, you've got it everywhere and anywhere. So don't be a hypocrite, you know? Take your iPhone and smash it to bits, you liberal, because you're just being a hypocrite if you don't, okay? Because that battery in there came from some little kid in Africa that was mining deep down under the dirt and getting all dirty and filthy for you and your iPhone, okay? Now I have an iPhone too, but I'm not a stupid hypocrite. And I understand that that little kid was probably had an even more bleak future without somebody wanting him to go down and get something of minimal value, even though it should be maybe more valuable, but hey, you know what? You gotta start somewhere. Yeah, he could have been working in a Nike factory, right? Yeah, there you go. Yeah, or he could have been starving, working on the family farm, trying to eke out some existence there too and starving to death. You know, these people think that these people live like we do and then they go into the mine, okay? It's like, okay, we all live in a three-bedroom, two-bathroom house, you know, 1500 square feet with central heat and air and we have refrigerators and a big screen TV in every room. And yet with that, we still have to get up in the morning real early and go to the mine and mine the cobalt for our iPhones. So I mean, you know, that's some mentality. You know, you gotta be a moron to think that. So there you go. And so, no, we don't need more regulations. We need less. Let me ask a question then, Tim. Let me ask a question. Are you, am I understanding you correctly when you say that there are no conditions under which the government should intervene to stop, to stop trade? Yeah, I'm pretty much saying that. Okay. Yeah, you have an example. I know what you got. Well, no, what about during slavery? Should the government intervene to stop that trade? The slave trade. Now you're going to make a hypocrite out of me, Leon. No, I'm not trying to. I'm not trying to, but we... Well, now, Tim, you're going to have to go and smash all your slaves, because I... Yeah, all my slaves, you know, all those, the good... I mean, you know, all that wheat and barley and corn that was consumed that came from the slave trade, I'm going to have to go burn it all now that I said that. Okay, in controlling companies of... Okay, are we talking about controlling other countries, the companies in other countries, or are we talking about controlling... Well, I guess it doesn't matter, right? The regulation is a regulation. Yeah, in this particular case, you know, so they're essentially equating this with something like slave labor happening in China. Well, they're saying not something like slave labor, they're claiming the allegations are, and I have no proof of it, but the allegations are that the Uyghurs are working as slaves in that region of China, producing all of these products that we are receiving here in the West. So the question though, the question, if indeed it is slavery that is ongoing, should the government intervene to stop that? That to me is a vital question. Now, I'm not saying I have the answer, but I'm saying it is a vital question. Well, you know, you probably would be able to convince me that, you know, I do have exceptions, you know, I do have some kind of advice after all. I'm not all about the cheap products, you know? So, and if that makes me a hypocrite, I'm sorry, you know, I'm not perfect. And so, yeah, I mean, I could definitely make, I could make a case myself that they should have a regulation against slave labor. And then, well, somebody would go, well, okay, well, what about this pollution here that harms the earth and blah, blah, blah and other people, you know, you could, like I say, okay, let me back up. Once you get that going down that slope, it's slippery and it just is gonna take everything with it. And to bring up like a slippery example, the left might say, well, this is not unionized labor. Therefore, it's slave labor because they're not making what we consider a minimum wage here, even though they may be working in the Nike factory voluntarily for 50 cents an hour or whatever it is, you know? And so, you know, you could sort of- Which is triple what they would make anywhere else in their country they come from, you know? Well, there's no doubt that, I mean, you know, the, in some of these cases, you brought up the case like in Africa, Tim, there's no doubt that the person who's working in these, I mean, obviously horrible conditions, but they are better off than they otherwise would have been, right? I mean, that argument could be made. But it still begs the question though, at what level, where is the point that we should make this cut off? Or are we gonna say all products produced under whatever conditions, it's okay for it to be traded freely? Yeah. Right. Oh, Tim, before you get going too far, we can keep going with this, but I didn't wanna short your good guys with guns. So if you wanna go to good guys with guns, we'll do that or otherwise we'll continue with this. Now, well, are you kidding? Are you asking me? I mean, I'm the one that's asking you. I'm asking you. I'm asking you. I'm asking you. I mean, cry it out loud. You can shoot the way out if you want. I wanna switch topics real quick. Okay, this sounds like a good one to come back to another time though. Yeah, let's come back to that after I've given it some serious thought. Okay, okay. And when we do, let's get rid of this Leon guy, okay? Can we get rid of him? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always. Thank you for listening to the Knuckleheads of Liberty podcast. Find us on Facebook, Rumble, YouTube, your favorite podcast network and at knuckleheadsofliberty.com.