I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2025 (On Fear)

I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2025 (on the topic "Fear"), I got a notification about it today. Thus I'm going to share my essay here, because it is non-fiction (but I do not plan to share my losing poetry or fiction):

VIPs can fear

I fear of dogs, especially the large ones like a pit bull, especially when there are more of them. I would like to show you that I am right. Flies do not seem to fear, neither do locusts. That is because it is a good strategy for them not to fear in the struggle for existence. Many other animals fear, however, humans included. That is because evolution favours fear in many cases. Thus it is reasonable to fear sometimes, and it is reasonable not to fear at other times. Still, there are people who tend to fear more often, they are the cowards. Traditionally, cowardice is considered a bad trait, while its opposite, courage is considered a virtue since at least Aristotle. Indeed, Aristotle taught courage (and not audacity), and his disciple, Alexander the Great successfully applied it to spread the ancient Greek language and culture more in antiquity. However, this fact does not justify the claim that courage is better than cowardice in general, or in our case of fear of dogs. We need to examine the question further.

As far as we believe, Socrates, Aristotle's teacher's teacher, said that "Virtue is knowledge", and Aristotle himself taught that "Courage is a virtue", so if both Socrates and Aristotle were right, then we could infer that "Courage is knowledge". According to this theory, the people who know more about dogs and about fighting may be usually less afraid of dogs than those who only have their instincts of fear. For instance, news about someone strangling a cougar has given me some more courage against dogs. Other examples may be found in the novel "Call of the Wild" by Jack London, so this could also help, at least when we have clubs. (People with clubs could easily beat dogs in that novel.) Still, there are many times when I fear of dogs and I don't think that more knowledge could help, except for knowledge about Heaven. There is also knowledge that increases fear, like the Wikipedia List of fatal dog attacks including a lot of cases about pit bulls. Simply, there may be cases where the chances of dogs are better in a fight. Consequently, cowardice in these cases may be a virtue, if virtue is still knowledge.

Perhaps it will be enlightening to you if I share the details of some specific cases where I fear of dogs. The shortest route from/to the city center passes by a house with a German Shepherd dog there. The gate is usually closed, but sometimes it was open and the owner of the dog was there. Therefore, I usually take another route. (Once I went that way in spite of the dog and the gate open, because I was in a depressed mood.) In other cases, we went to my grandmother's house by bike. There is a house with many big dogs on the way, where the gate is usually closed, but sometimes it was open and the owner of the dogs was far away in the house. Therefore, I prefer not going that way, if I can... and I do not bless those who keep big dogs.

Am I a coward? This really seems to be so, because I am also timid when approaching women. But I can explain. One of my acquaintances has told me that he drank alcohol to pluck up courage to talk to a girl. Our fear of courtship might be justified when we unconsciously feel that the girl or woman is not the right companion for us. Otherwise, our Nature may allow us to overcome this fear anyway. Now if not everyone can be our partner, then we are VIPs (very important persons), at least to ourselves! Thus the lack of bravery might mean something positive, something of value! VIPs also deserve more protection from dogs and from other attackers. Fear can mean such a protection. VIPs should not depend on the mercy of dogs!

Once I walked in the city, and I saw a German Shepherd dog (or a similar one) on the other side of the street closed in a large yard. As far as I remember, it saw me, too. I raised my arm and shaped my fingers as if I were holding a sword. I imagined that it was the Sword of God (Sword of Attila) or a lightsaber (from Star Wars). Then the dog seemed to fear and whine.

I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2021 ("Untamed: On Wilderness and Civilization")

I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2021 (theme: "Untamed: On Wilderness and Civilization"). Here is my essay:

 

Civilization is the new Wilderness

As far as we know, our species (Homo Sapiens) has come into being in small communities. They were hunter-gatherers (like some monkeys), and there was a limited supply of food for them, that's why their population could not grow significantly. Some people call their system „primitive communism”, as they shared the food among themselves, and their land was common. This means that there was probably not much competition inside their own group, but instead, they were fighting or competing against other small groups. The soul of humankind has formed in this kind of environment, with its ability to love and hate, to forgive or avenge, to be brave or cowardly, to think, speak, act or omit. Later in history, agriculture allowed the sizes of populations to increase, so the smaller groups grew into city states and even nation states. This way they had more chance against smaller groups in wars, and this kind of civilization conquered the world (or at least, the Earth, if extraterrestials exist). As the magnitude of communities was increasing, love and hate, gratitude and retribution were no longer able to govern human relationships, so laws were required, like the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia or the Ten Commandments of the Bible. These laws were usually able to sustain peace inside the states (preventing civil wars), but did not manage to sustain „primitive communism”. Inheritable social inequalities appeared, and people possessing military power (like the aristocrats in ancient Greece) or spiritual power, real or alleged (like the Brahmins in India) owned and commanded more. The institution of slavery in antiquity meant an even larger kind of inequality. Due to the unjust inequalities in society, more rivalries came up among members of the same state (e.g. „class struggles”, as some people call them, or competitions for jobs), so in case of humankind, the evolutionary struggle for existence (as Darwinism teaches) got two dimensions (not to mention the environment): struggle among states (or nations) and struggle among individuals of the same state (or nation). Well, this might have been so in prehistoric times as well, but on a different level. In today's world (the era of United Nations) there is less competition among groups (or nations), and more competition among individuals (or nuclear families). This means that we are more like bears and less like ants than before. Thus, it seems that we have been untamed!

Well, of course, the case is not as simple as that. People are still urged to be law-abiding, useful to others, and popular (to have many friends or acquaintances). There is just more individualism and cosmopolitanism on Earth than before. The point is that in today's world, civilization to humans is like wilderness to bears. It is no longer a strong alliance, but only an environment of rules telling how to compete. These rules or laws cannot ensure that people remain tame inside, as there are always loopholes or lacunae in such a system. For example, the conduct of pupils and students is worsening in schools, and the movies are more and more violent. There is cyberbullying despite the countermeasures. There are many video games with protagonists who actually commit crime in their imaginary world. There are soccer fans (or football hooligans) who might break shop-windows after a match. Copyright infringement is widespread, and there are also many other kinds of crime and corruption. Thus, it seems that many people in our era are born to be wild, which they remain to be inside, and only look tame from the outside as they get more sophisticated. It also seems that Christianity knew this, and tried to improve the situation by focusing on love (or alliance) instead of the laws. Still, the evolutionary struggle continues, and it still means competition among individuals (or nuclear families) in an environment of rules called civilization. To us, it matters how fair these rules are, and how they differ from the true wilderness.

The rules of civilization should be better for us than those of wilderness, otherwise failing states and anarchy would be a priority. Believe me, they are not a priority, even if you are an anarchist. If there were anarchy, your standard of living would fall, you would lose many opportunities of entertainment and learning, so you would have less enjoyments, while you would suffer more, you would probably be hungry, you would probably feel cold in winter, etc. Even your life would be in danger. If these were not enough, you might also lose your main reasons of being an anarchist: justice and freedom. Anarchy would not be just, because better equipped and larger groups would probably defeat the smaller ones. After doing so, they might turn you (or the anarchist) to a slave, like the Islamic State did with many people. Moreover, anarchy would not be sustainable either. Sooner or later some kind of military would form, and it would take control and then install some kind of civilization different from anarchy. Humankind would reorganize itself, and organization would conquer the less organized. Thus, failing states and anarchy are not a real choice, they are just temporary. Instead of them, we shall contemplate on different forms of civilization, which one is better than the others...

Well, while anarchists do not offer real solutions, they might still see some problems well. They are good at being against something, and this thing is the unjust distribution of power, including too great power over the poor. In the wilderness, there is no such a huge injustice. Animals only control their own bodies, and even alpha males have to fight for their superiority. This means that probably the ablest individual rules in Nature, if there is any rule at all. In human society, however, this is not necessarily the case... The 20th century has shown us two kinds of societies: capitalism and communism. The anarchists were against both, but they did not manage to introduce their own system, which is not a surprise after what I wrote here. In capitalism, probably the capitalists rule, i. e. those who have a lot of money. Even if there are a lot of opportunities for getting rich (or for getting political power), it is not likely that the ablest (or the wisest, most ethical, most diligent, etc.) individuals rule in capitalism in general. In communism, the political elite rules, probably those who are favoured by former politicians or who knows? The communist systems of the 20th century might not be the same as ideal communism. Ideal communism is democratic, while most of the communist systems of the 20th century were like dictatorships. Anyway, the power of the State is quite strong in communism (as well as the power of one Party), and this power might easily be even worse than the power of capitalists over the poor. Therefore, it is also not likely that the ablest (or the wisest, most ethical, most diligent, etc.) individuals would support a dictatorship or such a strong power of the State (or of „the” Party), so it is not likely that they would generally rule in communism either. (Note that a large state administration is not necessarily bad: but it should be about a „large public sector” instead of the „strong power of the state”.) Thus, we have seen that the political and economic systems of the 20th century were not perfect, and we (or the anarchists) can learn from the wilderness to criticize or improve them.

The point is to improve the rules of civilization, making it almost as just to humans as Nature was to different bears (or maybe even more)… and to make civilization almost as sustainable as Nature was (natural life has a history of millions of years, but civilization has been changing much more rapidly). Thus, in some respects, Nature is the role model, and some of its beneficial functions still missing from civilization should be implemented in society, too. For example, overpopulation should be prevented by laws, instead of letting Nature check it (as the latter would probably bring more suffering and instability). Something like permaculture (or organic farming) should be widespread, instead of letting farmers use genetically modified (GMO) seeds, pesticides and fertilizers, etc. The children of the rich should not inherit a lot of land from their parents (as land was common in Nature). There are many more ideas for a sustainable and equitable society, and these ideas can also be elaborated in more detail and perfection… but the question arises: are you willing to support some kind of law against overpopulation? Are you willing to pay more for better food? Are you willing to vote for big socialist reforms? Yes? Then why don't the politicians speak about these topics more often? Why isn't the limitation of overpopulation among the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations? Okay, maybe no one could suggest perfect and detailed laws (maybe „natural laws”) against overpopulation yet, especially not on the global level. In many developed countries, the population is not growing significantly, so the politicians might have thought that this will be the case globally after every country becomes developed… however, population would also grow in developed countries if the prices of houses and of utility bills were cheaper. Some „unassuming” part of their population might still grow. Also, overpopulation should be limited now, not only after every country gets developed, which will either happen or not. Maybe the possible laws against overpopulation would be worse for some countries than for others, and the people at the United Nations did not dare to introduce these restrictions. Anyway, at least I have written a little about these questions in this essay… but let's return to the topic.

Civilization is the new wilderness, and together with the old wilderness they determine the rules of the game of life. Life is like a game, and it does not seem to be a good game if we suffer or lose due to handicaps (but it may still be good if there is reincarnation, Heaven or Nirvana). Democratic Socialism (something between capitalism and communism) may diminish these handicaps. Success in life (and therefore, its enjoyment) may also depend on grace (at least in capitalism): workers can get good jobs by the grace of their employer, and entrepreneurs can sell their goods by the grace of their customers. If someone does not manage to get enough grace, then he or she can still fight or compete. For example, one may try to play chess professionally… Untamed again.

I didn't win on the 33rd Eisaku Sato Essay contest, 2017 (about Demography and the United Nations)

I didn't win on the 33rd Eisaku Sato Essay contest, 2017 (about Demography and the United Nations). Here's the essay I wrote:

Essay Title:
Are all things considered?

Abstract:

As an answer to the theme question of this year, i. e. how the United Nations should cope with recent demographic challenges due to unwished trends, I'm not only giving a consise answer to this question, but also suggest an approach based on philosophy independent from people, places and times, i. e. let it be compatible with the best. It is more interesting to discuss this problem as a domestical issue, so I included that in the essay, and refer to it when writing about the United Nations. Notwithstanding what the majority may vote, Ethics or the Good „God” always has veto power (or freedom not to enforce the laws made by others), and the world is not for the Evil.

Are all things considered?

Where the problems of demography are coming from? Are they coming from a significant difference of genetical traits in people, like some Nazis might have thought, or are they coming from cultural differences that are the result of injustice in the political systems? I think we have no right to judge until we tried to make the political systems more fair (for example, I respect some gypsies for their environmentally friendly low-level activities, but others hate them for similar reasons). Demographic issues are just a subtopic of problems in Political Ethics, and it's not possible to solve them perfectly without solving all the other problems they depend on. This means that a good answer in political ethics should always fit in a plan for a good political system. Injustice will probably exist, however, and it's unethical, as it's hard to be Ethical in all respects, and people often have to use the „principle of lesser evil”. Maybe the Nazis had stopped at this point, and thought: „there will be conflict anyway, and it's easier to win it when we know our men by appearance”. War is not the best solution for the long term, however, as it would quicken harmful technological changes, so it is not part of a good political system, and consequently, it is not the best solution to demographic issues either! As the existence of different animal species is considered good, a xenophobic war could only make things worse, and did not solve anything for the long term, except from survival to that point, maybe, if necessary. The goal should not be confused with the method, and probably even the Nazis could admit that Nazism was a method to invite much more people to the army, almost the entire nation, according to military theories of their times. This was not about philosophical plans for long-term peace (i. e. Political System), but practical improvisation for short-term success. Success, however, is relative to its agent, but the United Nations should support all members equally, by the way. Otherwise, not every people possess the knowledge that is necessary for being Ethical, as Socrates might have said, „Virtue is Knowledge”. This also applies to the knowledge of good political systems, and their reasons. As knowledge increases, the available ethical choices diminish, and some of the former decisions might have to be modified in some degree. For example, the knowledge of good political systems might urge us to make many of our other ethical decisions compatible with the achievement of such a system. This is also true in case of the demographical questions, the actual topic of this essay...

If the United Nations were wrong, or imperfect, then the theme of the 33rd Eisaku Sato Essay Contest could not be perfectly answered either. Thus the discussion of our topic shall be twofold: first discover general truth independent from the actual formation, or actually defining it (as Kant's „League of Nations” idea tried that, for example), then try to apply this in our times to the United Nations, as the actual theme description suggests... so let's begin. In my view, Demographics depends more on economy, and less on culture. This insight comes from my own life: I did not get any wife before I was 34 years old, probably for economic reasons. As it did not seem ethical to strongly pay court to a woman in my position, I did not even venture it, just focused on success and mutual interest on online love finders, which turned to be evil for their licenses, by the way. If I lived alone, my success rates could have been much better. Consequently, I deduced that the size of population is mainly limited by the high costs of living (building, maintenance, overhead expenses) in developed countries. Subsidies and benefits made with the intention of increasing population size do not help, as they usually support those who live below the acceptable standard of living (like many of the gypsies), and like to reproduce even in those circumstances. Economists had long pointed out that this will lead to overpopulation and suffering. That's why the costs of living shall be reduced as a form of subsidy instead of giving blind aid to the people with children. As for the gypsies in extreme poverty, they could afford to live on the same standard of living as common men by the plan mentioned here, and probably they would even do so, and be assimilated into the greater society. This could also help some of the lonely Japanese people to move away from their parents and cure depression thereby (consequently, both the rich and the poor classes could have benefited from this kind of solution). It's possible that without leaving their parents, they cannot find a spouse (or cannot practice business they like). Without finding a good spouse, children are not desired. Thus it can be argued that subsidy on the costs of living would matter more urge towards procreating than subsidy based on the number of children. If this is true, then it is also true that Politicians are responsible for some of the sins that poor people like gypsies do, at least in some degree, which can be greater than 50%. There are not many people who do not accept the opportunities which could mean a win in their lives. This time only the wisest ones would think about the loss of an even greater victory (as a temptation from the Devil, or something like that). As Demography depends on this, it primarily depends on internal affairs or domestic issues, not on international relations. It is possible that low fertility is the revenge of God for injustice in human society (in case it harms sinners more), and injustice is a domestic issue in the first place. Emigration can also be caused by injustice inside the country, when starting a new business is hard. The one-child-policy is also a law of a country (China), not of a greater entity, as this is so strict that makes it unethical to force on political powers or independent communities. Therefore, when searching for good solutions to demographic challenges, we should keep in mind that they are often originated in countries (for their common good), not in diplomatic circles made of agents commissioned for selfish purposes (of one member). In the migrant crisis of 2015-2016, Hungary was such a 'solver' country for obsession (either good or bad) and compulsion. Otherwise it's not sure that politicians will take care of the problems of the world (as problems outside their office) when they could also improve their own countries instead to get the job done well. If the employees of the United Nations were only composed of agents working for countries, the state of the art would not be much better in the field of creative ideas for the common good, I think, and Policy Institutes (also known as: think tanks) could carry more hope than official politicians. They could also try to prove such statements as 'competition due to immigration reduces the growth of the original population, so reducing immigration could increase birth rates'.

For the sake of the common good, it may be really necessary to solve demographic issues by global agreements, to avoid migration problems like we experienced in 2015-2016 CE. This is important as long as there is a risk of war or unwanted migration between countries, and some people might intentionally increase their (male) population size before conquest. Other threat is like the Iron Curtain of the Cold War, not allowing even tourists into other countries by default for mutual distrust, and this way limiting the accessibility of the wonders of the Earth like those called 'World Heritage Sites', as well as famous routes that would prove the maps. In our present world system of countries, therefore, peaceful agreements (like laws) between countries are necessary for the sustainability of the system, and the United Nations organization would make it easier. However, it gets harder again after the United Nations gets alternatives like the G8, G20, the European Union, etc. or maybe even a future organization that will really be better (as a successor of the League of Nations too), and no one knows which one is more important (for example, an Alliance of Small Nations could be a reasonable alternative for those who take it seriously, maybe with unconditional or involuntary membership to make it available to anyone). It's possible that the best solution to the demographic problems fits to an UN-like organization with slightly different rules.

Global agreements shall ideally not force anything, but remain 'agreements'. Otherwise they could build something like the Roman Catholic Church that is hard to change afterwards by 'grassroots' efforts. This is also for ethical philosophy: when something is philosophically evil, and the majority forces the minority to do it, then the majority commits a sin against God, which might lead to some kind of active or passive revenge. In such cases (especially in democratic states with domestic issues) the decision-makers, even more like talk-show hosts, could personally feel the drawbacks of the decision (instead of those they represent or help), and their only protection is that there are too few talented people who wants to be a politician.

Agreements shall not be underestimated, however. Even agreements can be voted democratically, and enforced only by those who voted for it (or even by the others if that's better for them too). Just all agreements should contain some clauses about the things which shall NOT be done with or allowed from those countries which do not enforce the agreement (however, enforcement by activities could kill the organization and therefore, not supported). Embargo, for example, is such a peaceful enforcement. This way it would work in a similar way as unwritten laws: enforcement is done by the community, and in this case, the member countries. When we know that there is nothing else we can ethically do, just some kind of agreement, then thinking time about other solutions can be reduced and the solution made quicker. Now, how could we tackle the demographic problems with this constraint of method?

When it is not ethical to force sending migrants to allied countries as a kind of more equal distribution (as it was planned in the European Union), it could still be ethical to make this a 'liberal' agreement instead of a 'democratically' voted measure, by some kind of 'penalty' or 'alternative choice' for those who do not comply. For example, 'if your country do not accept migrants, ours will send you less money'. There are not two, but more options this way: vote and agree; disagree and exit the organization, or disagree and accept the 'penalty', i. e. that they could deny some new things from us in their land (and the latter also includes the former). The passive penalty (denial, cease) is good because it naturally limits the extent of harm they can cause to member countries, and this way keeps the organization together (it also looks justice, by the way). Moreover, it might also be possible to disagree and vote again after the conditions (of bargain) change.

The United Nations organization should educate politicians and the people about Demography (and other issues) like I tried to do in this essay, but gathering the most beneficial scientific papers with good licences (with endorsement only by employees, not officially), and it could also search for or research solutions like an open policy institute to write the missing ones. When good Science gets weight, more people can relate to it, argue or act accordingly. Public Science is still better than Artifical Intelligence behind the curtains. The United Nations organization should organize (officially initiate) agreements, embargos or similar measures (for discussion and voting) when countries do evil according to the theories in the featured scientific papers (as an office for global common good), and it could recruit more peacekeepers who can be on the spot (not to rule, but to defend or destroy). However, the United Nations should not force anything, as it would endanger the sustainability and the perfection (i. e. justice) of the organization, so it cannot stop wandering migrants alone. In other words, it should have part of the legislative power (some of the reasonable suggestions for discussion) in international law (i. e. voluntary agreements), without any governing (ruling, controlling) power. Unless there are people who work on the global common good officially, it could happen that everyone expects others to work on these problems, but everyone is just doing their own job. Their own job, however, might be in conflict with absolute ethics, as they serve interest groups instead of philosophical rules. As a consequence, phenomena are sometimes not what they seem to be, and this is another reason why the United Nations should not control domestic issues of its members.

I didn't win on the JFTC Essay Competition, 2017 (about "Free Trade")

I didn't win on the Japan Foreign Trade Council Essay Competition, 2017 (about "Free Trade"). Here's the essay I wrote for that competition (sadly, there haven't been such competitions in the subsequent years until now, 2022):

Limits of Free Trade

When talking about the future (for an "ideal future free trade system"), we should think about future at a specific point of time, as well as future in the long-term. When the future is not considered a long-term interval, it will mean an ever-changing dystopia which usually changes for it's usually unacceptable, or inevitably leads to something else by the laws of Nature like it did so far. That's why a good future system should also be a long-term one, somewhat like the cyclic models instead of the exponential 'explosions'. For example, the limitation of technological development could make a model more cyclic, or stable, where easier understanding leads to easier and better planning. Now what about free trade?

Free global trade is allied with Capitalism by default, which, as explained by the book 'Wage Labour and Capital' by Karl Marx [1], accumulates more and more money at less and less Capitalists, and diminishes the equality of chances among the people. Free trade makes international conquest 'by money' easier, and maybe that's why it's justified that Communists called the Capitalist countries 'Imperialists' (and probably not for their kind of Democracy). Thus, it seems that Capitalism supports large countries like the USA or Germany, e.g. look at the rise of German supermarket chains in the European Union, or the world market for Hollywood movies or Silicon Valley products (there are many more that conquered, e.g. fast food restaurants, PET bottled drinks or cars). This is probably not the best solution for smaller countries in the long-term, unless they also have products for the global market and never sell the firm which produces them. Individuals, however, might sell their firms (or even their lands) to foreign buyers, in case those buyers pay a lot of money to them. This way 'privatization' could easily lead to 'globalization', the kind of globalization that is better for one nation than another. It is hard to turn back from this direction, as the economic needs can control politics from the outside, and trade relations could be like double or nothing! It is also a national security issue to produce most essential products (like food) at the home countries instead of importing them from less reliable sources. Free trade could make it harder to accomplish this local manufacturing, for the imported goods may be cheaper (and thereby bought instead of the goods produced domestically). Also, this does not only mean availability, but also quality issues, when the international relations are non-trivial. It can be seen, therefore, that free trade among capitalist countries can increase differences not only between people in the same nation, but between people of different nations as well, making the global system unstable. Other drawbacks of free trade include over-specialization, which makes technological progress quicker than its political understanding, making the system unstable again. (That larger markets lead to more specialization, was already known by Adam Smith [2].) In summary, the main disadvantages of the current free trade systems look like different kinds of risks (that businesses depend on a lot of things), as well as the injustice of the Capitalism coming together with free trade. E.g. too large firms may belong to the disadvantages of capitalism with free trade in the long-term. Now what about the advantages?

Free trade can make international outsourcing possible, i.e. produce goods in poor countries for less wages, and as a side-effect, carry the competent technologies and skills from one country to another. This would diminish international differences in technology, and thereby, in power (even if control is held by the rich foreign owners). This equalization can be understood as a probably good thing. Otherwise, free trade is a natural law, for there is a lot of freedom in Nature, and it is easy to consider natural laws good (they are the default, others are non-trivial). Free trade is also natural law for it makes its actors more competitive (in the short term against any third party), i.e. they enter free trade for its mutual benefits (they can focus on the manufacturing of less products with more efficiency, and buy the other ones). There may also be personal arguments for free trade, e.g. for buying cool stuff by members of the former Soviet Union. (Would they be interested in a barter?) What is this Earth for, if not the human? Availability of things belongs to a better standard of living, at least for those who can also live economically (note the other family members and sustainability, however). When talking about the advantages of free trade, we should also think about its alternatives. Protectionism means a limitation of import, and this is the main issue here. Otherwise, the question of free export may also be important e.g. for weapons and robotics (i.e. trade secrets), but for that issue we can just say: 'if you do not want to export, just do not export'. In case of import, however, there may be a conflict: the seller comes here, and offers the trade for anyone who buys... but this way he would do wrong to other citizens... so can we prohibit the sale if it's the interest of our group (a.k.a. practicing protectionism)?

Well, if Democracy supports protectionism (which can easily happen), then there is the 'principle of lesser evil' to keep Democracy instead of free trade. Democracy is a natural law too, and more natural than many questions it decides. However, there might be different kinds of Democracy, some of which do no look like Democracy (or not even are), and some others are more and more Utopistic or Idealistic. For example, basic (or advanced) human rights or citizen rights can be companions of Democratic Constitutions to make sure that important things are not neglected in legislation for the sake of other laws. (Even if the majority of voters supported a new bill, it would not be valid when being in conflict with a more important law voted by another majority.) As even the type of Democracy is chosen Democratically, we cannot make final decisions or dogmas about free trade, but only make suggestions or ideas. This also means that our ideal future free trade system should include some possible protectionist countries as well as the others... unless we can prove that free trade is always better for everyone... but can we prove it? We cannot prove it, unless we make it! Otherwise, one counterexample is enough to refute, and this would be, for example, about the issue of GMO (genetically modified organisms), and its use in food or other products. It is possible that GMO is allowed in some Democracies, and prohibited by others. This difference in democratic decisions justifies protection(ism) against free trade! There may be other differences in democratic decisions that would be against global free trade, e.g. about fair trade (with 'unfair trade as a market for social injustice'), or Nature conservation by lessening the market for products harmful to the environment (e.g. against ivory trade, whale products or soy bean plantations), or about other ethics of this kind (with new issues coming up in the future). Therefore, those who want free trade thrive, should make it more attractive to the others (and to Ethics), too. This may be done by increasing the advantages of free trade and reducing its disadvantages discussed earlier. Let's see how it could be done...

As for Capitalism, it shall be reformed by some new (and better) Socialist thoughts, and it shall be Okay, but it's not the topic of this essay. As for the risks related to free trade, it shall be limited to non-essential products, and it shall be almost Okay, too (however, there are still not enough good ideas against trading harmful technological devices). As for Ethics, free trade shall also be limited to 'Ethical' (e.g. eco-friendly) products, and almost fine for the third time... but it's already not truly free trade, just free trade on the markets of some product categories. How broad the set of these categories shall be, is one of the questions concerning the limits of free trade. In the age of environmental perils, there might be more justification for the limits than for 'global free trade' economic schools of thought, or even groups of interest behind. Another question is whether the limits of free trade shall be set by simple prohibitions, or by some other means (too)... for example, high taxes (instead of ban) could make free trade possible for the luxury markets, by keeping the number or mass of the imported things low. Also, whenever a foreign country uses subsidies to make its exported goods (indirectly) cheaper, the protectionist could also use taxes on the import to counter-balance those sinister subsidies. Thus there would be free global trade on the 'ethical and also non-essential' product categories (as Democratically trivial), while the other categories could be decided Democratically (which could probably mean very high taxes on unwished imports, and even bans for the unlawful ones), and the general topic is discussed, except from specific ideas to make free trade easier in such a Democratic environment.

Let's begin with an idea closely related to the Japanese shosha companies [3]! They export on the wholesale level, instead of going as deep as retail like German supermarket chains. Why is it better? It prevents the feeling of 'international conquest by money', as they leave retail to national shops. Wholesale can be discussed more easily even with those countries that do not allow free trade. Thus they would fit into our imaginary future free trade system (and maybe also into many other Utopias) more easily than their Western counterparts. In order to increase their trade, they should focus more on those product categories which will probably be traded freely. As they mainly focus on wholesale, they can focus more easily (like the 80-20 rule, i.e. 80 percent of gain by 20 percent of effort; trying to focus on only the success stories). By the way, the shoshas could also trade essential products now and in the future, when they make small reserves of those goods for the case of crisis. Among the many countries, it's possible that there will be one that needs them. The non-trading (i.e. home production) of essential goods is just a guideline for planning (for all countries), not necessarily for implementation.

Otherwise, it is probable that luxury (and highly taxed) products will survive the possible restrictions on free trade, but they would only be sold in some unconventional shops in bigger cities. Planning such a luxury-taxed network could also mean a door to the future. If there were shops into which only the rich go, they would become a status symbol and therefore be popular. It's worth mentioning that luxury products are generally good for the environment, and only bad when they use more material or energy than their cheaper counterparts. However, luxury is luxury because it has usually more investment in working hours than in the raw materials. Working hours are like services, make something special. Luxury is about quality, not about quantity. The environment, however, is mostly harmed by quantity of waste, not the quality. (At least, 'other things being equal', in a real-world scenario where the quality is not too bad.) This luxury market was worth mentioning because in our ideal future free trade system, more products would fall in the luxury category, both for overpopulation predictions, as well as keeping free trade.

In summary, the world is changing very quickly, and technological developments cause a lot of joy and sorrow. Among the many parts of knowledge, it's hard to find a theoretically good (and therefore long-term) solution for future planning. In 2017 CE, national boundaries and the conflicts due to them still seem to be strong. This means that free trade will probably have restrictions as well, where theoretically it's best to produce essential products in each country, and only import those not so essential. This is just an advice, not a sure scenario, so a limited number of essential products can also be produced for export even if it's probable that less and less countries will import them. The masses buy products of giant firms, but there can be a way to get rich by selling to the luxury market. Free trade is projected to remain in the luxury markets, but the causes of the masses may be formed by new Socialist movements.

References
[1] Karl Marx - Wage Labour and Capital (by LibriVox recordings)
[2] Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations (by LibriVox recordings)
[3] JFTC Essay Contest website (www.jftc.or.jp)