IT is easy to understand why some people find banning private log exports an attractive idea. Superficially, it appears to save jobs, reduce domestic timber prices and slow environmental degradation caused by logging. But there are good, ethical reasons why a ban makes little sense. In later columns, I will discuss the likely economic and environmental consequences of a ban.

Government exists to promote harmony and foster prosperity. These goals are hard to attain if political power is used to strip some people of their property to benefit others. Such actions eventually hurt everyone for they erode the foundations of a free society. When property is taken for legitimate public purposes, owners should be compensated for their losses. This is not to happen if private tree farms are prohibited from selling logs abroad. The prohibition surely feels like plunder to those who may suffer it.

Protection from political coercion must remain our paramount concern even if raw log exports cost a significant number of Northwest jobs, a far from certain outcome. Liberals and conservatives who understand the social value of the market process understand this. A productive and cooperative social order requires property rights that are secure from arbitrary seizure or reduction in value. Even if a ban on the export of private timber would save jobs, the process it legitimizes leads to increasing conflict and to ethical erosion in relationships among citizens.

Some politicians face strong incentives to prohibit timber owners from selling their logs to foreigners. They seek political gain by playing on people's fears that global commerce means the loss of jobs and security. Politicians flirt with a destructive game when they try to generate campaign contributions and electoral support by favoring one group or person at another's expense. Yet, average citizens remain unaware of the unintended consequences of these actions.

Opportunistic behavior, not compassion, explains the export ban. This is no accident. In politics, duplicity accompanies opportunism and honorable behavior is a severe liability. Honorable politicians are like vegetarian coyotes in that they face a great handicap when competing with their red-meat opponents.

Although many of us are disgusted with pork-barrel politics, we often reward our representatives with re-election when they secure our pork. Congress loses respect but our representative is well-regarded. It is easy to rationalize socially destructive behavior by someone we know well. People often see their representative as a good person who must compete in an institution where principles are a liability. The institution brings out their worst and causes many to flee national politics.

Everyone has good reason to oppose political opportunism. The reason is simple: Politicians who will steal for you will also steal from you. History shows that politicians are rarely bought, but often rented until someone is willing to pay more. This is why it is so important to reward politicians who are true to their principles. (And why so many of us are offended by the hypocrisy of "conservatives" who advocate governmental subsidies for the rich.) When government can arbitrarily constrain property rights and freedom to trade on our own terms, no one is safe. Even if intentions are pure and ends legitimate (e.g., saving jobs), relying on coercion to impose an uncompensated loss is neither ethical nor wise.

In economics as in ecology, we can never do just one thing. We cannot predict the mischief that will arise to confound our intentions when we use politics to generate private benefits for one by taking from another, e.g., taking markets from owners of private timber. The more government becomes the granter of special opportunities and special privileges, the more people will seek them from government. And they always come at others' expense.

An export ban may preserve jobs in timber processing while destroying those in shipping. It may even harm Northwest mill workers as disinvestment occurs and private timber investment shifts to the Southeast and abroad. More generally, we create an environment in which no one's property, income, or job is safe when we legitimize transferring resources among citizens by stripping or attenuating the property rights of one group to benefit another. We create the Founding Fathers' nightmare: a political economy of plunder.

When constitutional protections of individual rights and limits on government power are respected, they serve us admirably. These protections - embodied in the takings, contract and commerce clauses, provisions for impartial trials, and the safeguards in the Bill of Rights and later amendments - are designed to shield us from the predations of government. The U.S. Constitution was designed to foster a political economy of justice with respect for other's possessions. Society becomes less civil and less productive when we stray from this design.

The ban on log exports would cause economic and environmental harm. This is important and I'll discuss these problems in my next column. But most of all, the ban violates fundamental ethical principles that underlie our Constitution and our nation. Arbitrarily taking something of value from one group and giving it to another can only undermine liberty and security. The export ban may be good short-term politics but it is pregnant with mischief.