It’s Not About Free Trade, It’s About Open Access to Ideas

It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. — Karl Marx

Free Trade. For many, these two words spell a tapestry of wealth and plenty, for others, Free Trade is a matter of simple logic: the best possible system out of many slightly more inferior systems. And yet, Free Trade, in practice, has consistently shown itself to create the exact same problems which Marx attributes to the bourgeoisie class in his above quote. It is a system of violent and vicious control, one which harbors no illusions toward pity, mercy, or compassion — to say nothing of how cheerfully shortsighted it remains.

In the modern political landscape, Free Trade means much more than a reduction of tariffs for the purveyance of various matter states from one point in space-time to another point in space-time. Even in this regard, I find the notion that absolutely unrestricted trade is beyond reproach to be a questionable one — but it is more the ideological approach to this topic that concerns my present essay.

It is not this process which I believe needs questioning, rather, it is the entire premise upon which this process relies.

Milton Friedman said that “the economics profession has been almost unanimous on the subject of the desirability of free trade.” And yet this does nothing to consider the reasoning behind those economists who support it — what are their larger goals, their interests, their beliefs? This is not an arbitrary or unrelated question, but the fundamental point I am attempting to drive home: Free Trade, like any idea, is reliant upon its self-contained premises; it, like any other ideology, has certain outcomes which it considers to be “best” and it strives to reach those goals at whatever cost it deems as acceptable. It is not this process which I believe needs questioning, rather, it is the entire premise upon which this process relies. Rather than focus further on the already-existent economic arguments regarding Free Trade, I would like to consider one piece of an alternative philosophy.

First, I wish to establish that open access to ideas is a good thing.

Protectionism, in regard to this concept, is absolutely fatal to the flourishing of humankind. The more that a society closes itself off from outside ideas (usually through the adoption of some specific “trusted” religion or other social power structure) the faster it slips into division and decay. Rejection of new ideas in favor of propping up an existing worldview is not healthy. Access to ideas, to knowledge from a broad spectrum, creates those specific types of growth which are vital for the longevity of the species: co-operation among practically-disparate elements of the society, advancement of technology for the public good, unfettered interaction between members of different social and cultural backgrounds.

In a society geared toward the protection of its citizenry and the establishment of all basic needs as a right — rather than a privilege — the need for an artist to sell their work in order to survive becomes less important or entirely unimportant

Open access to knowledge is not, however, synonymous with “trade of ideas.” Rather, it considers ideas themselves to be generally non-proprietary. This perspective considers ideas to be both a product of a larger communal whole — and therefore, in some manner, “owned” by the larger whole — and takes the stance that restricting access to ideas can be directly harmful to the greater whole.

Now, this perspective might still require certain adjustments in a society which appreciates the value and absolute importance of the sovereignty of the individual: in the case of artistic works, for instance. Although this is primarily only a concern in a society where some form of scarcity economics is the dominating factor (as, in a society geared toward the protection of its citizenry and the establishment of all basic needs as a right — rather than a privilege — the need for an artist to sell their work in order to survive becomes less important or entirely unimportant.

However, with regards to the larger concept, the point remains that restriction of ideas is only beneficial to those who have the power to enforce such restrictions and generate further ideas behind the barrier of those restrictions. This is, for instance, the problem with how copyright law (especially in the US, but internationally as well) is handled; it exists purely for the furtherance those economic practices which place their own internal goals (i.e. generation of profit) above what is best for the society as a whole.

One place where we can see the benefit of open access to ideas is within the STEM disciplines. Here, if we restrict access to vital knowledge, we hold back the advancement of our understanding of the universe. Likewise, if we hold back the advancements produced by science from general use, we damage our species’ ability to better itself. This, of course, has further points of subtlety to consider as well: for instance, should all new technologies be instantly available to every citizen? Should we merely adopt the latest and greatest technology whenever it arrives? In the consumer world that’s the current practice, as every new model phone that sells millions of copies suggests. And this is why the model of open access to ideas must not be restricted to any particular knowledge area. This is also why open access to ideas is not synonymous with the actual implementation of all ideas — rather, it is by increasing our available pool of knowledge that we increase our potential actions, thereby allowing us to make, collectively, better decisions regarding our actions.

Fundamentally there would be much to consider in the implementation of such a massive change in our global understanding of ownership. There are layers within layers of subtlety to take into account and actual implementation of the absolute removal of private ownership of ideas might not even be the best option. However, we are seeing some moves — especially within the technology world — toward this mindset, moves built on a wide array of reasoning. We are also seeing consideration of those social changes (such as the standardization of a guarantee for the right to basic needs — in forms like Universal Basic Income) which would provide the structural framework needed to make open access to ideas a reality.

At the very least, considering topics like this allows us to reach beyond the box of the known, where we find ourselves arguing minutia, and into a larger space of imagination. In this larger frame, we can begin to explore the sorts of alternatives which are desperately needed if our species is to survive. It’s also a move away from those sorts of arguments which encourage the belief that a system which promotes suffering is, in any way, a good system — and that it might be possible to have both respects for the individual, alongside some notion of the holistic good.