me:
>> I'd like to know how "free markets" and "private property" could exist
>> without the restrictions imposed by government.
David B. Shemano wrote:
> I don't think they can. Have I ever said otherwise?<
As my memory is rapidly turning into cream of wheat, I can't keep
track of all of what people say. (It's hard enough to keep track of
what _I_ say -- and to avoid telling the same jokes over and over
again.) Since you seem to be an honest guy, I assume you've never said
otherwise.
But a lot of libertarians -- with whom you remain associated in my
mind, at least -- set up the following dichotomy:
(1) free voluntary exchange (good!), vs. (2) state coercion (bad!).
In practice, it's not really a dichotomy at all. It's not only that
the voluntary exchangers (capitalist firms) sometimes call in the
goons (including government goons) to beat up their work forces when
the latter dare to go on strike. It's also that "voluntary exchange"
often involves coercion directly. To choose a pre-EPA example, the
capitalist firm does not simply produce steel: it trespasses on our
lungs with pollution, forcing us to breathe poisonous air. (This
language actually comes from a libertarian I know, but I think he's a
deviant.)
> If I may be permitted to show some frustration, I have been on this list for
> 8 years. This canard has been raised repeatedly as if it had never been
> discussed before with me and addressed multiple times. <
when a canard is thrown, duck!
> I am not an anarchist. [good] It is plainly obvious to me, and most
> libertarians, that a quality functioning political system is necessary for
> the success of a free-market economy. A successful free-market requires a
> court system -- and a force to enforce judicial decrees. It needs a
> registrar of deeds. It needs a lot of things to be provided by government.
> Go read Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. So please, don't raise red
> herrings.<
or red canards.
As I understand it (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong), the
general idea of Hayek and most so-called libertarians is that state
coercion should only be used to (1) defend the nation, (2) protect
so-called private property, and (3) enforce contracts. If the
government does anything more than that, it's oppressive, inefficient,
unjust, etc. It's supposed to be a "night-watchman state."
This view rules out democracy. The role of the government is
determined by the needs, deeds, and creeds of those who own "private"
property, especially "productive" property (capital) that allows the
creation of new goods and services. To the extent that they have more
of this kind of property, in this view, the state should serve them
more (since they have more to protect).
The vast majority of the people do not have such productive property
to a significant extent. (They might have a little equity in a house,
but that is a different kind of property: it's like owning a personal
refrigerator.) Thus, those who have rights to productive property can
impose alienation, domination, and exploitation on them.
Then, the real function of the "night-watchman state" comes in:
defending the (productive) propertied minority against the majority.
--
Jim Devine / "The radios blare muzak and newzak, diseases are cured
every day / the worst disease is to be unwanted, to be used up, and
cast away." -- Peter Case ("Poor Old Tom").
