Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike
Message-ID: <974@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 23:19:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.974
Posted: Tue Jul 23 23:19:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 21:03:57 EDT
References: <262@ihnet.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 45

In article <262@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes:

>Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free 
>market.  Indeed, if you accept the axioms, the libertarian conclusions 
>are inescapable.  You may or may not be profoundly ignorant (economically), 
>but our government often is, and the consequences are disastrous.

Perhaps so, but there seem to be two conflicting uses of the word "free"
here.  If you take "free market" to mean something like a classical economy,
then you do indeed get the benefits claimed.  But libertarians seem to me to
be quite consistent in equating "free market" with uncontrolled market.  THe
historical rather plainly shows that markets tend to drift away from perfect
competition towards monopolies and oligopolies as a result of natural
forces, unless there are restraining forces to oppose this.  In some
industries, these forces exist naturally.  This is not the case, however, in
most manufacturing industries.  Hence, there seems to be a contradiction
here; you can't have classical free markets and uncontrolled markets at the
same time.

>2.	If libertarianism is inescapable, why do *some* intelligent educated
>people (such as yourself) question it.  The reason is the "if".
>None of the axioms are entirely true, and some are blatantly false.
>One axiom which can never be true is: "individuals are moral".
>Even if you began with a moral, perfectly free society, any immoral mutant
>would have selective advantage in this unconstrained world, and would have
>more descendants, etc.  Libertarians freely agree to legislation prohibiting
>murder and rape, but fraud and unsafe products can be equally damaging to
>society.  Sykora's quality assurance companies that would spring up suffer 
>from the same temptations.  Kickbacks, bribes, and inappropriate 
>competitive practices may make these companies as bad as the ones they 
>are monitoring.  
>So I reluctantly accept government control agencies (EPA, FDA, etc).
>With this exception noted, the immorality of the individual doesn't
>threaten the validity of free markets.  Indeed, it supports them.
>Laziness (the most common form of robbery) is never rewarded in a free
>market.  If the theory doesn't convince you, compare the productivity
>of existing countries, or China now vs China earlier.

I note that this passage employs the double usage of "free" I noted above.
As a result, it is vulnerable to criticism based on the historical record.
People can in fact work to distort the free market, and make it less so.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

  "Better get used to those bars, kid."