In a trade war any company is fair game. A trade war thus naturally reaches across multiple values that a nation may hold, bringing them simultaneously under tension. Free speech is just a coincidence to the nature of TikTok, but what about cars, drones, phones, or even soybeans?
When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns?
Do people have the prerogative to have successful industries? Do people have the prerogative to cheap energy, food, and other life basics? In the US, this is not actually enshrined anywhere, is it? The right to life simply means you roll the dice with life, doesn't it? One might say that even the beggars on the streets are enjoying their right to speech and life as we speak.
Are we afraid to list the topology of our values? A framework for comparing which values are actually superior? That's all I asked for.
Personally I think if China found the right narrative to pinpoint destroy Apple & Tesla, or moved too quickly to capture Taiwanese industry, then the US would seriously contemplate war.
The US constitution will absolutely permit war as a response to trade conflict. The US has already gone to war for such reasons with smaller countries.
We were speaking on the value of speech. What values should prompt us to send youths to die abroad? What does the constitution say about the hierarchy of values here? I'm just asking for a framework for determining which values are superior under conflict.
When values are in conflict, which should win? In the hierarchy of values, where does economic world position stand in terms of national concerns?