Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.

The definition begins with "merchandise or possessions;" since human beings in the U. S. cannot legally be made the merchandise or possession of another human being, I will primarily assume that our debate need not cover the "this includes people" as part of that definition. I will hope that this debate does not become one of free trade and immigration; there is quite enough difference to make them separate topics of debate, and while I have the maximum character limit on each round for this debate, it is still a limit. Secondly, BoP is fully on me. Now, let"s begin. The reasons for importing all consumer goods, capital goods, investments, etc. without restriction are as follows; it will allow us to be wealthier, it encourages a reduction of trade barriers against our exports, and it encourages neutral peace with other States. First, allowing the free import of goods will make the average consumer of the United States wealthier. The reasons a foreign good sells in another country is two-fold; it is either cheaper to produce in the foreign country, or it is of a different quality that consumers prefer to the home counterpart. Either way, the only reason a foreign good sells compared to a home counterpart is because the consumers prefer the foreign good. In the case of differing quality, profits are going in the direction that satisfies human wants, and giving the economic signals to make products more like the foreign one. In the case of a cheaper good, there is a freeing of resources happening; the foreign seller has more money to continue creating what is desired, whilst land, labor, and capital at home is freed up to produce different goods the American consumer wants. Either way, wealth is improved with imports. Now, the astute reader will likely ask how the U. S. is to pay for its imports if it does not trade with other countries. Excusing for the time the antics of the Federal Reserve in selling government debt abroad (by creating dollars and increasing inflation), other countries need dollars to buy American goods and Americans need the foreign currency to buy foreign goods. However, under the system of fiat money we have today, this would mean that an almost barter-like situation has to happen in the international market; there has to be people from outside the U. S. who for some reason want U. S. dollars, and they have to have the currency the U. S. firms want to use to buy foreign goods to sell. So, in todays world of fiat money, the "balance of trade" is only an issue when factoring in the selling of government debt (which is more an indictment of governments spending beyond their means than of trade between private individuals). Lastly for this opening post, a policy of importation without restriction allows for a safer U. S. and less reason to involve the U. S. military in foreign conflicts. When States go to war, it is essentially an extension of domestic politics; the British wanted the U. S. for economic reasons in the Revolutionary War, the control of lands West of the Mississippi river was economic in seeking to mine the gold and other resources there, among Northerners during the American Civil War there was those who wanted to keep the south in order to avoid a free-trade zone not subject to Federal tariffs [1], there was war debt to be protected in the first World War [2], and a desire by different capitalists to protect interests in Europe or acquire interests in Pacific oil is partly behind the attempts by FDR to get the U. S. into the second World War [3]. Additionally, the Spanish American war had many economic incentives [4]. While a moral outrage is described as the reason for war in all the cases I have listed (the mexicans or spanish accused of shooting first in the Mexican-American and Spanish-American conflicts, the taxes imposed by the British in case of Revolution, Slavery and Fascism and Monarchy in the other conflicts), this is merely part of ensuring the "prefect trinity" that Clausewitz considered important to a war is present; a hatred of the enemy for which to get the support of the common citizen [5]. There is plenty of moral outrage in the world, but it is the movers and shakers with economic interests who lobby States to pursue a policy of war or peace. With the ability to sell any good in the U. S. and the ability to own capital in the U. S. , there is two incentives for the rich of foreign nations; they are incentivized to stress peace towards the U. S. in their own States (since war kills paying customers), and they are likewise incentivized to lobby for peace from the U. S. in order to protect capital interests. What this means is that the U. S. is less likely to be attacked and simultaneously less likely to be belligerent, thus reducing the security dilemma that States face in the international scene [6]. When coupled with the incentive for other States to open up, as well as the reliance each State gains upon each other, there will be more peace and more prosperity. I hand the ball to Con. [1]. http://www.emarotta.com... [2]. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu... [3]. http://mises.org... [4]. http://www.shmoop.com... [5]. http://www.clausewitz.com... [6]. http://en.wikipedia.org...