[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Another question about free-markets... (fwd)



Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:03:25 +0100
> > From: Steve Mynott <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Another question about free-markets...
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:53:28PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > > Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What then is the
> >
> > no in a free market there is no state
> >
> > there are laws based on natural rights
> 
> Ok, who writes the laws? Who enforces the laws? Who decides what is natural?

Everyone.  Ever heard of common law?

> Remember, we have *NO* participants in a free market other than the producer
> and the consumer. Two, and *only* two, parties are involved.

This is incorrect.

Everyone is involved, in that there is generally more than one producer,
and almost always more than one consumer.  If the general body of
consumers feel that producer X is doing something unethical, or
otherwise badly, they will not do business with that producer --either
for fear of being cheated, or simply because they feel that it would be
morally incorrect to support him.  If it happens that there is only one
producer, then the general sentiment of the consumers will create a
large demand for an alternative supply of whatever producer X produces. 
This generally leads to the diminishment of X's profits, which either
drives him out of business entirely, or forces him to change his ways.

This is how it works in a free market/society.  Of course, if it were a
governed society, producer X would buy up a bloc of politicians, and get
them to either pass laws prohibiting or handicaping his potential
competition, or get them to give him a big fat subsidy, which can be
used to drive competitors out of business.  The net result: everyone is
forced to buy from producer X, even though everyone knows he's slime.

Is the argument any more clear now?

Michael Hohensee