When we think of "protecting" someone from something in the abstract, we're likely to visualize an innocent party being threatened with some harm. Our natural inclination is to think such protection is probably a good thing, but this creates a problem. It means that any policy which is framed as providing "protection" for someone will seem like a good thing, if we don't think carefully about exactly what that policy does. The label "protection" serves to make the policy sound laudable and to make careful thought about the actual nature of the policy seem unnecessary. Whenever a policy is marketed as providing "protection" for someone, this is a signal that we should think carefully about what the policy will actually do - we should look for an alternative way of framing it which makes clear exactly what the policy will do.
George Mason University Don Boudreaux is a master of this. Consider his recent comment on a senator's statement about "protecting" American exporters.
EXCERPTS from Boudreaux's letter:
Dear Sen. Brown:
In today’s Washington Post you declare that “Demanding that trade agreements work for American exporters isn’t protectionism; it’s common sense.”
In other words, whenever other governments dole out favors to foreign corporations at the expense of foreign consumers, you want Uncle Sam to dole out favors to American corporations at the expense of American consumers.
This isn’t common sense, sir. It’s garbage-heap economics that serves as a convenient excuse for politicians to pick the pockets of hundreds of millions of Americans for the benefit of politically influential businesses.
