Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say.

I recently watched a "reality" series called The Colony. The setting was LA after a deadly virus had wiped out most of the population. The story was of 10 survivors who end up in a giant warehouse and scrap yard. Of course there are no utilities; no water; no electricity; no working sewers, etc. They are left on their own to survive however they can with what they've got. Occasionally they would be "attacked" by roving bands of bad-guys so security was one of their priorities. There first priority was water of course. Their only source was from the LA "river" which was pretty bad. They built a filter system and boiled the water to sterilize it. This worked well until they ran out of propane for boiling. In the meantime they had rigged up some solar cells which charged a bank of car batteries so they had plenty of electricity.One of the guys remembered that water could be sterilized with ozone so he built a Tesla coil to create a spark and then collected the ozone generated and bubbled it through the water. The only problem they had then was getting water from the river back to their warehouse without being attacked by the wandering gangs.

Occasionally, good people would come by looking for handouts. This caused dissension among the members of the colony. Some insisted that it was their moral responsibility to give these unfortunates water. Others thought that if you gave a few water, pretty soon you would be overwhelmed, and perhaps overrun, by the needy. Not one of the cast came up with the solution which is moral and will lead to peace - it has been used since the beginning of mankind*. It is trade. In a situation like the Colony one could say "Bring me 10 gallons of river water and I will trade you for one gallon of clean water." The needy can provide a valuable part - security for the Colony,  in exchange for clean water. Water could be traded for food, or fuel, or weapons, or even protection from bad guys. There is no moral dilemma as long as both parties are agreeable to the trade. The traders are free to put whatever conditions they think are needed on the trade. They could say "If you steal the river water from someone then we will no longer trade with you."  Much more effective than preaching!

Today, common thought about trade is somewhat convoluted. On the one hand it is considered somehow dirty. It is only dirty if it is not free trade. On the other hand it is somehow considered evil to put conditions on your trade. You must treat everybody equally - no matter how immoral they might be. I consider this to be evil because it is no longer free trade.

Free trade is the great peace keeper between people, tribes, cultures and nations.

* Perhaps the ability to trade defines mankind. A tiger will never offer you a trade - it will either kill you or let you go.