The differences and similarities between "free" markets and government are far more complex than either Mark Anderson or Victoria Heller assert.
Firstly, "free" markets have tremendous coercive power. Capitalized interests make decisions with tremendous real-life consequences for non-capitalized interests. How "free" am I when I live in Flint, MI, and GM destroys my town? What does "freedom" even mean in such a circumstance? I am not "free" to continue living as I would like, I am simply "free" to "choose" where I will relocate, and which lower-paying service job I will take. Similarly, the market exerts great force over consumption behavior. Advertising works, or corporations would not spend hundreds of billions on it a year. Despite the lack of a gun to one's head, the shaping of individual behavior to meet a certain norm is textbook coercion. These are rather broad examples, and it's necessary to underscore the importance of individual agency - one can turn off the TV, for example, or disconnect oneself from the market economy almost entirely to avoid working for others. This discussion, however, has erred on the other side, overemphasizing agency and underemphasizing the coercive systems of the market. We need to keep in mind that there is a balance, that the market is neither "free" nor does it dictate all action within it. Secondly, Mark and Vicki ignore the vital links between government and the market. A "free" market CANNOT exist without coercive government intervention, most importantly the enforcement of contracts. States without a government-enforced legal system cannot attract capital, and without agreements to honor another State's laws, trade ceases to occur. Hell, every American corporation is legally acknowledged by an American state. They are inseparable. This nexus is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of this debate, as it is the most dangerous. The worst abuses of both government AND markets occur when they collude, and the coercive powers of government and capital join in common purpose. For an example, see Central America, 1820-present. Or late 1990s Minneapolis. This is where Vicki and I agree. Interestingly, the only course of action to prevent the above, if one supports a market economy of one kind or another (or if one has accepted that market economies never really go away), is to work diligently within government to make it a counterbalance to capital, rather than a supportive force. On another topic, Victoria writes: "Minneapolis perpetuates its one-party political steamroller by putting DFL activists on the payroll through the NRP and funding its 81 neighborhood mini-councils." Kinda makes me wonder why the city keeps funding the Seward neighborhood, since the past two chairs (correct title?) have run for office not with the DFL but with Minneapolis' only viable opposition party, the Greens. Keep swingin' Vick. Robin Garwood SE Como P.S. Milton Friedman and Co. (along with the politicians they swayed, Dems and Repubs) will be remembered as fondly as Herbert Hoover. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
