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?