Quoth Paul Ireland:
> 2. The people I regard as economists include Robert J. Barro, Walter
> Block, James Buchanan, Donald J. Boudreaux, Richard M. Ebeling, David
> Friedman, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Higgs, Israel
> Kirzner, Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Mark Skousen, Thomas
> Sowell, Vernon Smith, Mark Thornton, Richard Timberlake, and Walter
> Williams. All of them agree with the definition of a market taking
> place in a geographical area.
Really? Here are two of the aforementioned folks on what a market is.
Ludwig von Mises:
"The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The
market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the
various individuals cooperating under the division of labor." -- Human
Action, chapter 15 ("The Market: Characteristics of the Market Economy")
Murray N. Rothbard:
"The network of voluntary interpersonal exchanges forms a society; it
also forms a pattern of interrelations known as the market." -- Man,
Economy and State, Chapter 2 ("Direct Exchange")
> 3. [Moderator: I deleted Paul's response to Tom's attack on Paul's
> methodology because Paul's response was an escalation into
> generalized ad-hominem; which is off-topic in this forum
> -TLP ]
Aw, c'mon, Terry. There's something bigger at stake here than whether
economists, in referring to "the market" are referring to the overall
whole of exchange or to Bob's Stop-n-Shop in particular.
Both Mr. Ireland and myself frequently hold ourselves and our ideas
out as representative, to some larger or smaller degree, of
libertarianism. Each of us thinks that the other is not only
frequently wrong, but in wrong in ways that are potentially
embarrassing and/or damaging to the party and/or movement.
Settling the argument over which of us does or does not represent
libertarianism properly cannot be done without at least approaching ad
hominem. For one thing, the accusations are implied by the reasoning,
even if they are not overtly stated.
For example, if I note that Paul Ireland disagrees with Harry Browne
on tariffs, it is likely that in response to that notation, he will
respond that he knows everything there is to know about Harry Browne
and that I'm dead wrong, and that Harry Browne said whatever it was
convenient for Paul Ireland for him to have said, and nothing else.
That, in turn, will likely move me to post a quotation from Harry
Browne showing that he did not approve of tariffs (although he
regarded them, more or less, as the least bad way to transition away
from coercive taxation), which in turn will likely move Ireland will
call me a name, insist that Harry Browne meant something entirely
different (i.e. whatever Ireland wanted him to have meant), call me
another name or two, huff, puff, proclaim his primacy of place in the
godhead of libertarian theory, and maybe stomp around a little or send
me off-list nastygrams until I get his ISP to threaten to cut him off
if he doesn't cease and desist.
This process will reveal something. Granted, what it will reveal will
not be very flattering to Ireland, but I'd be happy to be subject to
the process even when it reveals things that aren't flattering to me.
So, pray let the thing work itself out.
> If I say "In order for you to sell your goods in my mall, you must pay
> rent." I'm not forcing you to pay rent because I'm not forcing you to
> sell your goods in my mall.
True -- IF it is your mall. Your argument that all market transactions
within the US constitute a property in which the US government
exercises legitimate ownership are -- and I shall be as gentle as
possible here -- not very persuasive.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
