>As conservatives post their questions to this list they make the
>presumption that any assertion not in line with free market ideology
>must be defended. I. e. they presume that they are right and anyone
>disagreeing must lay out, in detail, a defense of that disagreement.
>
>Quite arrogant, isn't it?
>
[Informative and useful quotation from Keynes snipped in the interests of brevity].
>> There is little evidence that the "free market" works as the CATO
>Institute and the rest believe, yet the widely held presumption that it
>does remains unassailable.
>
> It makes you feel like Galilleo doesn't it?
>
I sense that Gene is annoyed at being called upon by me and others to defend the position he and others have taken regarding California's utility deregulation. I do apologize for causing any irritation, and I do appreciate his attempt to respond to the questions I raised based upon the newspaper articles posted by David Shemano. I wished to assist David in getting an answer by focusing the conversation on what I felt were some particularly strong arguments in favor of conservatives.
Beyond that, I don't think it should surprise anyone that arguments not in conformity to the free-market position should be challenged. As always, widely shared beliefs, precisely because of their general acceptance, are rarely called upon to defend themselves. John Stuart Mill believed that for this reason, the adherents of such beliefs gradually lose their ability to defend them (Mill 1992).
Those of us who are politically left of center are now faced with a generation of right-wing scholars (Friedman, Buchanan, Tullock, Laffer, etc.) who developed their arguments during the years when the various free-market traditions in economics were minority positions resisting the "hegemony" of the Keynesians. Following John Stuart Mill's argument, it's not surprising that, having developed their ideas speaking to tough audiences, such right-wing scholars would be formidable adversaries. Nor is it surprising now that the arguments of the left are less widely believed than they once were, that those on the left should be called upon to defend themselves frequently.
The left is guilty of its own arrogance. I have been impressed over the years by the willingness of many on the left, usually those of an activist rather than academic bent, to treat certain claims as obvious rather than responding seriously to conservative critiques. For example, how _do_ we know inequality is increasing? How _do_ we know racism and sexism are still problems? How _do_ we know that the so-called "ruling class" really rules? For some on the left, such claims are virtually taken as axiomatic. My disappointment with the left on this score is one reason I gave up on the radical left during my early years in graduate school (now an embarrassingly long time ago, I fear).
I appreciate the attempts Jim, Gene, Michael, and others have made to answer David's arguments.
REFERENCES
Mill, John Stuart. On liberty. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210
(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter
