Why Forcing Companies to Stay in the US is Counterproductive and Anti-Patriotic

In the dynamic landscape of modern business, the idea of forcibly preventing companies from leaving the United States by threatening arrests and asset stripping is not only counterproductive but also fundamentally at odds with the core principles of the free market and capitalism.

Counterproductive Impact on the Free Market

The notion of servicing companies with such punitive measures is the exact opposite of the freedoms that the United States has long advertised. By suggesting that companies cannot leave the US without risking severe legal consequences, one is essentially advocating for a nationalized industry. This runs contrary to the very ethos of the United States, which emphasizes individual freedom and the intrinsic rights of businesses and their owners to operate as they see fit.

Dictators of the past, like the far-right leaders in Europe who initiated wars during the early to mid-20th century, similarly nationalized industries, imposing strict control and ownership on companies. Such actions are not only against democratic values but have historically led to economic stagnation, inefficiencies, and a general decline in industrial competitiveness.

Simultaneously Promoting Slavery

The concept of companies not having the freedom to leave their current business locations is deeply disturbing. It implies that businesses can be compelled to remain where they are, whether it benefits the company or not. This is not just a violation of free market principles, but it also raises the uncomfortable specter of forced labor, reminiscent of the conditions of slavery. Such an approach is patently illegal and anathema to the democratic principles that the United States upholds.

Subsidies as a More Effective Alternative

Instead of resorting to such draconian measures, it might be more effective to provide subsidies to companies that need support to remain viable. Subsidies can help companies achieve profitability in their existing locations, without the heavy-handedness of threatening legal action. Even if a company is faced with economic hardship, providing them with the necessary financial support allows them to continue contributing to the local economy. Furthermore, allowing companies to exit unprofitable ventures and reallocate their resources to more successful operations is often a smarter economic strategy.

Imagine a scenario where a widget factory in Arizona is struggling to make a profit. A rational business owner might choose to close the factory, lay off workers, and move operations to a more cost-effective location like Mexico, where manufacturing costs are lower. If the government were to intervene with threats rather than support, it would only stifle economic mobility and drive companies underground.

The Risks and Consequences of Enforcement

When governments seek to influence behavior, they often rely on a combination of enticements and punishments. But both approaches have their drawbacks. Enticements, like subsidies, can be costly and distort market dynamics. Punishments, such as arrest and asset stripping, can be even more detrimental, undermining the stability of industries and creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

For instance, consider a business owner who opts to close their manufacturing facility and relocate it to a cheaper location. If the government threatens to arrest the owner, it not only creates a hostile business environment but also hampers the owner's ability to make rational economic decisions. They would fear legal repercussions, even if it means keeping unprofitable operations open, which is economically irrational.

Escalating the Problem

The idea of arresting individuals for merely buying or leasing property or employing people in other countries is fraught with unintended consequences. If a homeowner owns a property in another country and employs a housekeeper, should that be illegal? Or what about companies that already operate internationally? Do they face the same legal penalties?

Imposing blanket bans on actions that might be perceived as beneficial in the long run is not a sustainable solution. It might prevent one problem, but could create many others. The best course of action is to carefully consider the potential consequences of any policy before implementing it. Sometimes, the most effective solutions aren't the harshest ones, but the most targeted and constructive ones.