Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike Message-ID: <7800361@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 00:19:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800361 Posted: Sat Jul 27 00:19:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 00:09:41 EDT References: <974@umcp-cs.UUCP> Lines: 37 Nf-ID: #R:umcp-cs:-97400:inmet:7800361:000:1977 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Jul 27 00:19:00 1985 >/* Written 11:19 pm Jul 23, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike" ---------- */ >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 [record] 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. Please show us where the historical record indicates that markets tend to drift away from competition. In particular, the "restraining forces" you seem to imply might exist as a fluke seem to me to be quite ubiquitous. For someone who'd never heard of Consumer Reports, you sure seem to claim a lot of knowledge of history! > >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. Indeed they do! But their tools tend to be regulation, not natural market functions -- or hadn't you heard what happened to OPEC?