Here is a passage from Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. It addresses the survival of the fittest argument used against advocates of the free market. Note: There is no free market now. We have a hampered market. The author, when referring to "the free market", is not referring to the current state of affairs.
10. Back to the Jungle?
Many critics complain that the free market, in casting aside
inefficient entrepreneurs or in other decisions, proves itself an
“impersonal monster.” The free-market economy, they charge,
is “the rule of the jungle,” where “survival of the fittest” is the
law.Libertarians who advocate a free market are therefore
called “Social Darwinists” who wish to exterminate the weak for
the benefit of the strong.
In the first place, these critics overlook the fact that the operation
of the free market is vastly different from governmental
action. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless
to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally
convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this
may take a long time or be totally impossible. On the free market,
however, there is no final decision imposed by force; everyone
is free to shape his own decisions and thereby significantly
change the results of “the market.” In short, whoever feels that
the market has been too cruel to certain entrepreneurs or to any
other income receivers is perfectly free to set up an aid fund for
suitable gifts and grants. Those who criticize existing private
charity as being “insufficient” are perfectly free to fill the gap
themselves. We must beware of hypostatizing the “market” as a
real entity, a maker of inexorable decisions. The market is the
resultant of the decisions of all individuals in the society; people
can spend their money in any way they please and can make any
decisions whatever concerning their persons and their property.
They do not have to battle against or convince some entity
known as the “market” before they can put their decisions into
effect.
The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite
of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war
of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another,
by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence
level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force
crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one
man gains only through serving another, though he may also
retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so
desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the
market that all men gain through the development of the division
of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of
the “survival of the fittest” to both the jungle and the market is
to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The “fit” in the
jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The
“fit” on the market are those most adept in the service of society.
The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others
and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and
productive place where all serve themselves and others at the
same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption.
On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot
exist in the jungle.
The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle’s destructive
competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative
competition in the service of one’s self and others. In the
jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market,
everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that
wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the
jungle, that permits the “weak” to live productively, or out of
gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the
“strong” in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living
standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities
of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.
It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—
bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest
and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place
of the peaceful “struggle” of competition in mutual service, statism
substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of
Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited
subsistence.
Comments
I completely and utterly disagree.
Honestly.
I will honor my word. But I am curious as to what you disagree with? And I do want to let a few others respond. By the way, here are some quotes from Che,
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations.”
“Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate Indians.”
“Bolivian campesinos are simply Animalitos.”
I prefer that you stick around and ask questions, I would like to enlighten you regarding fiance, market and biz.
It's naive to think the free market as working together... Do you have a choice when there are monopolies in banking, auto, consumer goods.
Do you have a choice with your credit card?
And how is BofA, Citi, Wally world are working together with you, mom and pop shops? Or Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Did they work together or were they more predatory?
Ask all those whose home were reposessed.
Instead of just reading blindly, ask questions and question what you read.
I prefer that you stick around and ask questions, I would like to enlighten you regarding fiance, market and biz.
It's naive to think the free market as working together... Do you have a choice when there are monopolies in banking, auto, consumer goods.
Do you have a choice with your credit card?
And how is BofA, Citi, Wally world are working together with you, mom and pop shops? Or Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Did they work together or were they more predatory?
Ask all those whose home were reposessed.
Instead of just reading blindly, ask questions and question what you read.
From Leftist historian Gabriel Kolko:
"Kolko writes:
"In 1899 there were sixty-seven petroleum refiners in the United States, only one of whom was of any consequence. Over the next decade the number increased steadily to 147 refiners. Until 1900 the only significant competitor to Standard was the Pure Oil Company, formed in 1895 by Pennsylvania producers with $10 million capital…. By 1906 it was challenging Standard's control over pipelines by constructing its own. And in 1901 Associated Oil of California was formed with $40 million capital stock, in 1902 the Texas Company was formed with $30 million capital, and in 1907 Gulf Oil was established with $60 million capital. In 1911 the total investment of the Texas Company, Gulf Oil, Tide Water-Associated Oil, Union Oil of California, and Pure Oil was $221 million. From 1911 to 1926 the investment of the Texas Company grew 572 percent, Gulf Oil 1,022 percent, Tide Water-Associated 205 percent, Union Oil 159 percent and Pure Oil 1,534 percent."
Standard Oil's decline preceded the antitrust ruling against it in 1911.
Andrew Carnegie reduced the price of steel rails from $160 per ton in the mid-1870s to $17 per ton in the late 1890s. John D. Rockefeller was able to reduce the price of kerosene from one dollar per gallon to ten cents per gallon.
Cornelius Vanderbilt beat the monopoly on steamboat traffic granted by the State of New York to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton. Vanderbilt was hired to run a steamboat between New Jersey and Manhattan in defiance of that monopoly. Vanderbilt evaded capture while at the same time charging only one-quarter of the monopolists' fare. After Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824) overturned New York's steamboat monopoly, the fare for a trip from New York City to Albany dropped from seven dollars to three. The trip from New York to Philadelphia, which had been three dollars, fell to one dollar. Travelers going from New Brunswick to Manhattan now paid only six cents, and ate for free. When he moved his steamboat operation to the Hudson River, Vanderbilt charged a fare of ten cents, as opposed to the previous three dollars. Later he dropped the fare entirely, running his operation on the proceeds from concessions aboard the ship.
That is the biggest bunch of hog wash that I have ever wasted my time reading. The so called free market is a sham and always has been. I'll dare anyone who find a large company of any kind and show me how they use the free market "within it's own walls". Everything from the CEO's salary to the amount of money spent on paper clips is regulated. It has to be in order for said company to survive. Everything that a successful company does is targeted to the best possible outcome of the company as a whole. Everyone within said company has their actions regulated. Employees cannot do what's best for them in spite of their company or it will fail. If the book keeper decides to sell company sales numbers to the company next door in order to do what's best for their own pockets they will be promptly escorted out of the building by security.
How is that any different than a country? Said business cannot do what is best for themselves in spite of their country. That's exactly what happens with no government regulation. Just like a business, the amount of regulation depends on the circumstances but it must be done. The most important thing is to have competent people calling the shots when it comes to regulation. The same as you need competent people calling the shots in a successful business. Business's should not be able to outsource work to other countries unregulated just because it's best for them. It hurts the country as a whole and the one's who do should be shown the door, just like any good business would do.
Any business or businessman, even the great Ron Paul, that demands the so called free market system, is nothing more than a snake oil salesman. They know the truth.
I completely and utterly disagree.
Thank you PlanetXan.
I will honor my word. But I am curious as to what you disagree with? And I do want to let a few others respond. By the way, here are some quotes from Che,
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations.”
“Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate Indians.”
“Bolivian campesinos are simply Animalitos.”
Wow, those sound like Ron Paul quotes...
I will honor my word. But I am curious as to what you disagree with? And I do want to let a few others respond. By the way, here are some quotes from Che,
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations.”
“Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate Indians.”
“Bolivian campesinos are simply Animalitos.”
Really? You want to go there? I was worried you were going to accuse me of watching Glee.
Here are some quotes from Glee:
I'm sorry. Are you concerned I am not taking your post seriously? Fine. Here is how Rothbard rationalizes his racism:
i.e. whites are richer because they are smarter, and libertarianism just allows that to play out.
On the black protests in the 60s:
How about separate but 'equal'?
How dare you bring up the racism of my avatar when you are the one who gleefully brings up Murray Rothbard who wasn't just racist but used the English language to pretend he wasn't while legitimizing it and promoting it. Good riddance.
The other end to argue this from is this.
In the beginning, there were no onerous laws regulating smokestack pollution. Now there are. Why? Because the costs of the polluters having the freedom to pump ash and mercury into the air, was borne by others. The decision to not protect people's health and life was made to increase profits for a very few. The costs of providing charity for the sick was also deemed a cost the polluters did not see as their problem. All the benefits of pollution were enjoyed by the rich, all the costs and burdens were shifted to those unable to live far enough away from factory towns.
If your hypothesis were correct, these costs would have been taken care of through private charity. They were not. This condition lasted for many decades. Why? Because the psychopaths who stood to gain the most care not for the people they harm to gain their wealth. Anyone who did contribute to charity was furthering the psychos wealth, by making it easier to accept the status quo.
Therefore, since we tried allowing individuals the freedom to pollute, and no charitable organization appeared who could or would ameliorate the costs, we now have laws that regulate pollution.
The same thing for trucking companies running unsafe trucks, or meat packers selling tainted food. We know that the people who are most willing to harm others for their personal profit will do so every time, because their personal wealth is far more dear to them than someone else's kid. Thereforem they will poison children, if it means they get richer. Those who are safer are less profitable, and get run out of business. Which furthers the psychos, and sends them a signal that their way is right.
Anyone with a kid knows that if they see a 6 year swinging a hatchet around, you take the hatchet away from them. Because eventually someone gets hurt.
We regulate business because they are no more responsible than the average 6 year old, at the end of the day.
Nothing you quoted, some of it out of context by the way, was racist.
Here's more from Rothbard:
"TWENTY YEARS AGO I was an extreme right-wing Republican, a young and lone "Neanderthal" (as the liberals used to call us) who believed, as one friend pungently put it, that "Senator Taft had sold out to the socialists." Today, I am most likely to be called an extreme leftist, since I favor immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, denounce U.S. imperialism, advocate Black Power and have just joined the new Peace and Freedom Party. And yet my basic political views have not changed by a single iota in these two decades!"
"...
TO PASS BRIEFLY from the analytical to the evaluative, what should be the libertarian position on the Negro movement? Perhaps the most important point to make here is that the issue is a complex one; the Negro Revolution has some elements that a libertarian must favor, others that he must oppose. Thus, the libertarian opposes compulsory segregation and police brutality, but also opposes compulsory integration and such absurdities as ethnic quota systems in jobs. The ethnic quota is no less objectionable than Hitler’s numerus clausus; if 25% of bricklayers must be Negro, must not the proportion of Jewish doctors be forcibly reduced to 3%? Must every occupation in the land have its precise quota of Armenians, Greeks, Montenegrans, etc. ad infinitum?
For his over-all estimate of the Negro movement, the libertarian must weigh and formulate his conclusions according to what he believes to be the most important priorities. In doing so, incidentally, he should not overlook a generally neglected point: some Negroes are beginning to see that the heavy incidence of unemployment among Negro workers is partially caused by union restrictionism keeping Negroes (as well as numerous whites) out of many fields of employment. If the Negro Revolution shall have as one of its consequences the destruction of the restrictive union movement in this country, this, at least, will be a welcome boon. "
"Realizing this, suburbs have generally adopted rigorous zoning laws which prohibit the erection of housing below a minimum cost level—and thereby freeze out any inflow of poorer citizens. Since the proportion of Negro poor is far greater than white poor, this effectively also bars Negroes from joining the move to the suburbs. And since in recent years there has been an increasing shift of jobs and industry from the central city to the suburbs as well, the result is an increasing pressure of unemployment on the Negroes—a pressure which is bound to intensify as the job shift accelerates.The abolition of the public schools, and therefore of the school burden—property tax linkage, would go a long way toward removing zoning restrictions and ending the suburbas an upper middle-class-white preserve."
"Typical of how government has frustrated the productive activities of the poor is the case of the neurosurgeon Dr.Thomas Matthew, founder of the black self-help organization NEGRO, which floats bonds to finance its operations. In the mid-1960s, Dr. Matthew, over the opposition of the New York City government, established a successful interracial hospital in the black section of Jamaica, Queens. He soon found, however, that public transportation in Jamaica was so abysmal that transportation service was totally inadequate for the hospital’s patients and staff. Finding bus service inadequate, Dr.Matthew purchased a few busses and established a regularbus service in Jamaica, service that was regular, efficient, and successful. The problem was that Dr. Matthew did not have a city license to operate a bus line—that privilege is reserved to inefficient but protected monopolies. The ingenious Dr.Matthew, discovering that the city did not allow any unlicensed busses to charge fares, made his bus service free, except that any riders who wished could buy a 25¢ company bond instead whenever they rode the busses.
So successful was the Matthew bus service that he proceeded to establish another bus line in Harlem; but it was at this point, in early 1968, that the New York City government took fright and cracked down. The government went to court and put both lines out of business for operating without licenses.
A few years later, Dr. Matthew and his colleagues seized an unused building in Harlem owned by the city government. (The New York City government is the city’s biggest “slumlord,” owning as it does a vast amount of useful buildings abandoned because of nonpayment of high property taxes and rotting away, rendered useless and uninhabitable.) In this building, Dr. Matthew established a low-cost hospital—at a time of soaring hospital costs and scarcity of hospital space. The city finally succeeded in putting this hospital, too, out of business, claiming “fire violations.” Again and again, in area after area, the role of government has been to thwart the economic activities of the poor. It is no wonder that when Dr. Matthew was asked by a white official of the New York City government how it could best aid Negro self-help projects, Matthew replied: “Get out of our way, and let us try something.”
Sounds like a real racist to me.
Libertarians support the right of people to stop pollution. Pollution is a trespass, a violation of property rights. Some free marketeers try to rationalize pollution as a cost of Big Business. Free market libertarians don't. Selling tainted meat is a tort. People should have the right to sue for damages. How many butchers would want to sell bad meat? Isn't in their interest to make sure the meat they sell is not tainted? Poisoning children, or anyone, for that matter is against the law. Who supports poisoning?
Of course not. A libertarian state is impossible. It is both theoretically impossible and practically impossible, which is why, I suppose you would rather intitate conversations - hoping people would get caught in your rhetorical band of tricks.
Seems like we went over all this already, but what the hay....
But why leave harm caused by nature to chance, and harm caused by man to the government? Harm is still harm.
Right, but Bill Gates just gets a lot more decision making than I do. The question naturally arises if the individual in a free market has more influence than an individual in a political process. If there are barriers to entry, negative externalities, uncertainty in the market, and there are just a few firms, I think the answer is that individuals could probably do well in a political process.
The classic phrase was in reference to those barely productive enough to survive, not those who are productive enough to be wealthy millionaires. Geesh, Murray R. can't really be that dumb. But it perhaps implies more. It is about the result of competitive pressures, which consolidates ownership into the hands of the few and creates the masses of poor who are dependent on them. It is about the dynamic effects of capitalism. Of the poor not being able to afford education, health care, and of course, a lawyer - to defend them from corporate abuse. Of people working long hours and being spit out when they get too old. It's about the wealthy having 'tastes' for discriminating against minorities. It's about the wealthy exploiting the poor - which - driven by natural necessity - have to put up with the most horrific of conditions.
Libertarians support the right of people to stop pollution. Pollution is a trespass, a violation of property rights. Some free marketeers try to rationalize pollution as a cost of Big Business. Free market libertarians don't. Selling tainted meat is a tort. People should have the right to sue for damages. How many butchers would want to sell bad meat? Isn't in their interest to make sure the meat they sell is not tainted? Poisoning children, or anyone, for that matter is against the law. Who supports poisoning?
Well the first line says it all. If people are able to stop pollution, it must be through set of regulations. Is this free market? What constitute as a free market for you? It seems, you wish to have some set of rules regarding corporate governance, behavior and so forth.
People do sue for damages even in "non-free market", which you perceive that we live in. Lot of times, the small individual lose. If its health care, then companies will drag it out until you die. At which point, law suit is moot. In a free market, what compensation will be granted to you?
The idea of free market, what ever you think it is, seems to be more of Shangrila utopia. It doesn't exist. A corporate officer's fiducial duty is to maximize profit. If it is cheaper to allow people to die than fix a problem then so be it. They use actuarials to figure out the profit/loss risk. Thus we have set of laws to limit this profit/loss or rather to push the profit/loss margin toward loss for the companies. Loss meaning to force companies to fix problems. Famous cases are "too dangerous at any speed" against GM, "Ford Pinto" exploding tank are two famous cases.
In a free market, will laws be provided to give you a right to sue? On what grounds will you be able to sue?
----------------
lysander has a another thread asking the same question.
So in your free market, you are going to force me to clean up my act, stop polluting. hmm. But it doesn't allow me to maximize my profit. I'm not free to just spew toxic waste up a chimney and let nature dispurse it. if I go to some third world countries, they'll just let me do what ever I want. Have you work 7 days a week. 12 hours a day, force you to live in a housing I provide, and pay in notes only good at my stores... That's free market to me. What you suggest is nothing near free market that I envision.
I also should be allowed to raid the company where you work, and sell it off in pieces so I can make a quick buck. And your pension with all that money, well if its free market, I should be allowed to raid it. give myself a fat bonus. After all, there wouldn't be any laws governing me to agree to any agreements made by previous management. Those liability will be gone. The pension would be free for me to raid.
So could you explain your free market? and is it really free?
I thought you used to be a so called progressive. This brings to mind a vastly more interesting question. Would your formerly progressive self think a single statement in the OP is true?
Let me address everyone and clarify a couple of things. A free market doesn't mean a free for all. Integral to a free market are property rights, contracts and a judicial system where people can sue for torts and breach of contract. Obviously, murder, rape, robbery are illegal. No one has a right in a free market system to pollute his neighbor's property. Pollution is a trespass. You can't dump garbage on your neighbor's lawn. Likewise, you can dump particulate matter into the air which is going to impinge on your neighbor or dump toxic waste in a river that flows onto your neighbor's property. These are hard issues. Where libertarians differ with progressives is that we believe that there should be a judicial remedy, not regulatory prior restraint. Making money and profits are not the same thing. Sure, people could make more money if they were able to dump their waste anywhere they wanted. But, in a free society, each person and every company is responsible for their actions. I understand that air and water cross state and international borders. Remember, the Boston Globe, no friend of free markets, did a piece several years ago in which they showed that the Federal Gov't, particularly the Pentagon, is the greatest polluter. Lake Baikal, in the USSR, was one of most polluted lakes. When people own something, they take better care of it. When government owns property, its use get sold to the highest bidder or the politically connected, usually corporations.
I thought you used to be a so called progressive. This brings to mind a vastly more interesting question. Would your formerly progressive self think a single statement in the OP is true?
Reference to moi? I'm just giving a hypothetical to Lysander and facilitate the discussion of "free market". I'ts only free when I get to do the thing I want not something others do that may hurt me.
What difference does that make? They will do it anyway. Your reliance on the courts to stop all this is absurd. The rich will simply hire all the lawyers and investigators and do whatever the hell they want to.
But, I am repeating myself....
Here is a passage from Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. It addresses the survival of the fittest argument used against advocates of the free market. Note: There is no free market now. We have a hampered market. The author, when referring to "the free market", is not referring to the current state of affairs.
10. Back to the Jungle?
Many critics complain that the free market, in casting aside
inefficient entrepreneurs or in other decisions, proves itself an
“impersonal monster.” The free-market economy, they charge,
is “the rule of the jungle,” where “survival of the fittest” is the
law.Libertarians who advocate a free market are therefore
called “Social Darwinists” who wish to exterminate the weak for
the benefit of the strong.
In the first place, these critics overlook the fact that the operation
of the free market is vastly different from governmental
action. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless
to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally
convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this
may take a long time or be totally impossible. On the free market,
however, there is no final decision imposed by force; everyone
is free to shape his own decisions and thereby significantly
change the results of “the market.” In short, whoever feels that
the market has been too cruel to certain entrepreneurs or to any
other income receivers is perfectly free to set up an aid fund for
suitable gifts and grants. Those who criticize existing private
charity as being “insufficient” are perfectly free to fill the gap
themselves. We must beware of hypostatizing the “market” as a
real entity, a maker of inexorable decisions. The market is the
resultant of the decisions of all individuals in the society; people
can spend their money in any way they please and can make any
decisions whatever concerning their persons and their property.
They do not have to battle against or convince some entity
known as the “market” before they can put their decisions into
effect.
The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite
of the “jungle” society. The jungle is characterized by the war
of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another,
by seizure of the latter’s property. With all on a subsistence
level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force
crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one
man gains only through serving another, though he may also
retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so
desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the
market that all men gain through the development of the division
of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of
the “survival of the fittest” to both the jungle and the market is
to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The “fit” in the
jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The
“fit” on the market are those most adept in the service of society.
The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others
and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and
productive place where all serve themselves and others at the
same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption.
On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot
exist in the jungle.
The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle’s destructive
competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative
competition in the service of one’s self and others. In the
jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market,
everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that
wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the
jungle, that permits the “weak” to live productively, or out of
gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the
“strong” in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living
standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities
of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.
It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—
bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest
and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place
of the peaceful “struggle” of competition in mutual service, statism
substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of
Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited
subsistence.
The problem lies not with a free market economy but with an evil fractional-reserve banking system.
The American Dream Film-Full Length
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM
The Money Masters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA
Watch, learn and enjoy !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I disagree. Now keep your word.
So you don't want regulation to stop it in the first place. But willing to have judicial remedy after the fact. Judicial remedy only works when there is a breach of exisiting law. So if there is no law against me spewing toxic waste up a chimney, what legal remedy will you have to sue me?
Are you going to limit me as a corporate raider. ala, Carl Ichan, Michael Milken, Mitt boy. Why that isn't free then.
So you don't want regulation to stop it in the first place. But willing to have judicial remedy after the fact. Judicial remedy only works when there is a breach of exisiting law. So if there is no law against me spewing toxic waste up a chimney, what legal remedy will you have to sue me?
Are you going to limit me as a corporate raider. ala, Carl Ichan, Michael Milken, Mitt boy. Why that isn't free then.
I don't know about you, but I take my handy Star Trek™ tricorder out every morning and test the soil of my front lawn for particulates, samples of which I take back to the chemical lab in my basement so I can determine where they came from. Meanwhile, my crack team of lawyers is sitting by, waiting for the word so they can present the evidence to a court and the lawsuits can commence. Then I head to work in my car, complete with whizzanator-like tail pipe to mask the particle signatures I am spewing into my neighbours airspace, passing through a dozen or so toll booths into which I happily toss my gold nuggets as I drive through. It's a bright sunny, glorious day in libertarian land. At least I suspect it's sunny. It is hard to tell since Teflon Cloud Corp® bought the air rights over the city and blocks the sun out except to those willing to pay them to crack a hole open to allow some sun to come through. I mean I would pay, but I'm all out of gold nuggets. Maybe I can head to the mountains after work and pan for some gold. Oh, that's right...the mountain was privatized and pulverized. Never mind. It's just as well. It will give me a chance to meet with my lawyers again. They are working on patenting the word 'the' for me. No one else has claimed it, so it's mine.
©2012. This work is copyrighted. All rights reserved. Any attempt to broadcast or redistribute will be met with legal action unless expressly permitted in writing by Planetxan Inc™. Copying or memorizing this text is expressly prohibited by law, including incidental copies made by web browsers or any other digital device or biological device, including but not limited to, the human brain. The word 'the' is a registered trademark of Planetxan Corporation, Inc. Its use is expressly prohibited.
Let me address everyone and clarify a couple of things. A free market doesn't mean a free for all. Integral to a free market are property rights, contracts and a judicial system where people can sue for torts and breach of contract.
Traditionally, a free market is a market where there is freedom of entry and consequently freedom for prices to rise and fall according to supply and demand. In a free market there are many competitors on both the supply and demand side, none of whom can have any significant impact on prices in that market. In particular, any market where there is a monopoly is not a free market. When monopolies begin to develop, as we know they always do, the only remidy we know is for government to step in and break up the monopoly. It follows that no free market can be free of government interference
Sadly, government has not seen fit in recent years to do its duty in this regard. The notion of a free market as one that is free of government interference is simply wrong, a figment of widespread propaganda that too many, in and out of government, have accepted. Anyone who has studied even the most elementary economics should know this.
Monopolies have never lasted in the free market. They are only allowed to exist because of government. Please give me some evidence of monopolies existing without the aid of government. Keep in mind that government itself is a monopoly. Government, by definition, has the monopoly on the legal use of force over a certain geographical area. For example, no one is forced to buy Microsoft products (except where taxes are used to buy those products for government offices, schools, etc.). But you are forced to participate in the government you live under. Your only choice is to move. So, technically, you do have a choice. But the more centralized a government becomes, the less choice you have. I don't have to sell my house and leave the state because I don't want Microsoft's products.
As a practical matter, no business small or large can exist without the aid of government. Moreover, monopolies being big and powerful are always able to get more help from government than small ones, but this does not mean that governments cause monopolies and it certainly does not mean that government can't help but cause monopolies.
In fact there have been instances when the government actually enforced the Sherman Antitrust act and broke up monopolies. The Clinton Administration was the last to attempt this (the Microsoft case) but that was abandoned when Bush stole the election in 2000.
As a practical matter, no business small or large can exist without the aid of government. Moreover, monopolies being big and powerful are always able to get more help from government than small ones, but this does not mean that governments cause monopolies and it certainly does not mean that government can't help but cause monopolies.
In fact there have been instances when the government actually enforced the Sherman Antitrust act and broke up monopolies. The Clinton Administration was the last to attempt this (the Microsoft case) but that was abandoned when Bush stole the election in 2000.
I used to believe the BS that was taught to me in history and civics class. Then I read some outside sources. I would recommend checking out TomWoods.com, How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo and The Myths of Antitrust by Dom Armentano.
From DiLorenzo:
"
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are often referred to as the time of the "robber barons."
It is a staple of history books to attach this derogatory phrase to such figures as John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the great nineteenth-century railroad operators — Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others. To most historians writing on this period, these entrepreneurs committed thinly veiled acts of larceny to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers. Once again we see the image of the greedy, exploitative capitalist, but in many cases this is a distortion of the truth.
As common as it is to speak of "robber barons," most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.
Come on. Monopolies have been illegal since common law. Your not going to find an actual monopoly without going to the library.. And no, not at the CATO institute library. But there is the famous case of Aluminum before the war, and probably a few others - like the sugar market before the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Standard Oil was not a monopoly, but controled 80% of the oil market.
When we use the word 'monopoloy' we don't mean 'one firm' - we mean market concentration. And most markets are now concentrated with a few number of firms controlling most of the market. They behave strategically, not overtly. As I repeat, they can do this because of barriers to entry, uncertainty and the fact if they start to compete, then others will, and then excess profits will go down to zero. So, firms don't enter, prices rise (or quality falls), and firms behave with market control.
You see, not even you believe in the absurd definition of 'force' that you libertarians use.
Come on. Monopolies have been illegal since common law. Your not going to find an actual monopoly without going to the library.. And no, not at the CATO institute library. But there is the famous case of Aluminum before the war, and probably a few others - like the sugar market before the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Standard Oil was not a monopoly, but controled 80% of the oil market.
When we use the word 'monopoloy' we don't mean 'one firm' - we mean market concentration. And most markets are now concentrated with a few number of firms controlling most of the market. They behave strategically, not overtly. As I repeat, they can do this because of barriers to entry, uncertainty and the fact if they start to compete, then others will, and then excess profits will go down to zero. So, firms don't enter, prices rise (or quality falls), and firms behave with market control.
You see, not even you believe in the absurd definition of 'force' that you libertarians use.
No. Being forced under duress is still force. You have a choice to move to a different jursidiction, but that is not the same kind of choice when it comes to whether you want to buy Windows or not. I'm still waiting for an example of a monopoly that wasn't fostered by government. Just because there is one or only a few firms existing doesn't mean they have monopoly pricing. Provided that there are no barriers to entry, the firm may be offering a price that can't be beat.
Question: In a free market, am I forced to deal with any company that I don't want to deal with? Do have to deal with the government I live under? Do you not see the difference? Take the worst corporation operating in a free market. That is, a market where they don't have access to privileges from the government. In that case, as bad as they are, they still need me to voluntarily give them my money in exchange for their good or service. Does government operate in the same way? No.
By the way, I don't support CATO, in general. The do some good work and some bad work.
When we use the word 'monopoloy' we don't mean 'one firm' - we mean market concentration. And most markets are now concentrated with a few number of firms controlling most of the market.
Is market concentration necessarily a bad thing? Does that prove collusion or monopoly pricing? Firms don't control the market. Their survival depends on satisfying their customers. (Unless they run to government for bailouts or regulatory protection, which libertarians oppose). Do you think companies can charge any price they want?
hands thrown in air in disbelief!! GOOD GRIEF!!
you need to learn basics of economic theory. YOU NEED MONEY TO MAKE MONEY. Corollary is that if you have more money, your opportunity to make money is greater than the one who has less. You do not have the means to develop a subdivision a housing tract or to build a factory. A big boy who has ton of cash has the means to develop a subdivion and to sell the houses for a big profit this enriching them further. Same with the factory. Build a factory and you can make big profit again enriching themselves far more than what is possible to you. Thus they get richer and you are left behind. This is why and how business tend to concentrate in the hands of few. You are left behind. And this reason alone, you need government oversight to keep ATT, Edison companies and likes from taking control of the market. Look at Enron. Look what they did to California and customers in California.
To have "monopolies" you DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT HELP!! Not the Dutch East Indies, Not the Rothchilds, Not even the Medici familia and not any of the modern companies.
They got the government contract, because there were no other source.
Market concentraion for the most part is a bad thing. They don't have to innovate, entry into the market segment is not possible for a new player, even stifled through anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft tried to keep others from entering the internet engine. Netscape, Google, Mozilla if MS had it their way, you would be stuck with IE. They did this by bundling.
Depending on where you live, you may not have a choice of for your high speed internet provider.
Standard Oil was so powerful that they could obtain kickback from the RR companies who transported the oil So much so, that they got kickback from the RR companies when RR companies were transporting someone elses oil. In effect, Standard Oil was putting levy (tax) on other oil companies for transportation of oil. Is it a good thing for you that a corporations could levy others for the goods they sell to you? Literally, you were paying levy to Standard of oil even if you were buying oil from someone else.
And lastly, have you ever played monopoly. And if so how does the game usually end? One player owns everything. Yes?? no??
But you live in the real world where there is real economics.
If you lived in a libertarian world with imaginary (gee, I wish it were that way) economics then you wouldn't need government at all and everyone would behave like you would want them to. Like Tinkerbell says, you just have to believe real hard.
If you must buy Microsoft products to work and hence survive, or must buy Microsoft products because the government tells you, then you still must buy Microsoft products. The effect and choice in those instances can be exactly the same, depending on your opportunities to work or move.
LS, please do what you have promised. I would direct your attention to David Graeber's DEBT where he points out that the only "free market" in human history was based in cooperation and generosity, not the myth of competition and 'efficiency.' The "art of the deal" was heresy in a free market where keeping your partners in the market system in business was essential to the market and everyone who participated in it. Traders would pledge their honor to God and be certain that nobody left them feeling cheated or bargained out of their best interest. Being able to be generous was the way wealth was shown, not by eating the weak.
The modern Myth of the Free Market is pure utopianism at best. It is a recipe for a feeding frenzy of greed otherwise. Look at how it has worked on earth and no in the stars.
When we use the word 'monopoloy' we don't mean 'one firm' - we mean market concentration. And most markets are now concentrated with a few number of firms controlling most of the market. They behave strategically, not overtly. As I repeat, they can do this because of barriers to entry, uncertainty and the fact if they start to compete, then others will, and then excess profits will go down to zero. So, firms don't enter, prices rise (or quality falls), and firms behave with market control...
Did you read what I wrote above?
No and no.
Of course you're not going to have monopoly without government. You dont have THE MARKET without government. The Market is wholly a creation of government.
I guess we can just respond to every post with - I thought you werent posting here anymore. Maybe we need to band together to mass report all the prisonplanet spam as well.
I didn't realize the extent to which Mr. Hartmann and the members of this board are committed to economic totalitarianism, all in the name of battling corporations and defending the "little guy". Anyway, the Alcoa case was a travesty.
From Thomas DiLorenzo:
"
Joel Klein, the third-rate lawyer/political hack who is in charge of the government's Microsoft persecution, recently tried to rationalize the lawsuit by saying that it was in keeping with the long history of consumer protection regulation, beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In reality, the history of antitrust has been a history of politically-inspired witch hunts launched against America's most innovative and entrepreneurial businesses.
In the June 1985 issue of the International Review of Law and Economics I showed that the industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator Sherman and his colleagues in 1890 were expanding production four times more rapidly than the economy as a whole for the decade prior to the Sherman Act (some as much as ten times faster) and were dropping their prices even faster than the general price level was falling during that deflationary period.
The trusts "have made products cheaper, have reduced prices," admitted Congressman William Mason, who nevertheless was in favor of an anti-trust law. He was in favor of the law because he, and most of his congressional colleagues, wanted to protect less-efficient businesses in their districts from competition. Antitrust has always been a protectionist racket.
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the grossly biased judge in the Microsoft case, has frequently compared Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller, thereby perpetuating another statist myth -- that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company was a "monopoly." But Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry, just as Microsoft has stimulated innovation in today’s computer industry. For this great service to consumers, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company.
In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers. It was their less-efficient competitors who were "harmed," as they should have been.
For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911, even though the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs.
In what is perhaps the best example of nonsensical double-talk in antitrust history, in 1944 Judge Learned Hand found Alcoa guilty of "monopolizing" the virgin ingot aluminum market by employing "superior skill and foresight" which the judge feared had "forestalled" competition by those businesses with less skill and foresight. He condemned Alcoa for being extremely adept at correctly anticipating market demand for its product and then supplying that demand, to the "exclusion" of its less efficient competitors.
Alcoa "embraced every new opportunity" with a "great" organization, said the judge, and manned the organization with "elite business personnel." It was obvious to the confused and befuddled Judge Hand that gaining market share through entrepreneurial excellence should be illegal.
In 1962 the government forbade the Brown Shoe Company, which had 1 percent of the shoe market, from acquiring Kinney Shoes, which also had a 1 percent market share. A company with 2 percent of the shoe market, according to the government, constituted a monopoly.
In 1969 IBM, the Microsoft of the day, had a 65 percent market share in the computer market and was sued by the government for allegedly monopolizing the industry. IBM was mired in a court battle for thirteen years before the government finally gave up on the case. In the meantime, the company was eclipsed by Intel and other competitors while Microsoft had just produced, in 1981, its first copy of MS-DOS.
The government's assault on IBM undoubtedly weakened the company and weakened the level of competition in the industry as well. This has happened time and again as a result of Quixotic antitrust prosecutions.
In 1962 the government forced the Schwinn Bicycle Company to divorce itself from its network of dealers; foreign competition eventually drove Schwinn into bankruptcy.
General Motors was never prosecuted, but because of the company's fear of antitrust it was official company policy from 1937 until 1956 to never let its market share top 45 percent, for any reason. This fear of antitrust prosecution contributed to the industry's dramatic losses in market share to the Japanese and German automakers during the 1970s and '80s.
RCA was prohibited by antitrust regulators from charging royalties to American licensees, so the company licensed its products to Japanese companies. The entire Japanese electronics industry is based on this.
Antitrust regulation killed Pan American World Airways by forbidding it from acquiring domestic routes. Lacking "feeder" traffic for its international flights, the company went bankrupt.
Most Americans have never heard of any of these facts because they have been fed the Official History of antitrust, which is that free markets are a source of monopoly power which must restrained by enlightened antitrust regulators.
The truth is that monopoly is impossible in a free market; government is the true source of monopoly; and antitrust itself has never done anything but render American industry less competitive while inflicting great harm on consumers. The standard account of antitrust regulation being in "the public interest" is truly Orwellian."
Phaedus76
It's been a while since someone's comment on this site brought out great emotion for me. Your comment is so well stated! How could any average American citizen disagree? What is it that people who scream for less regulation are basing their stance on? It seems that people in this country are so uninformed and blinded by the propaganda of those in charge of making the big bucks. How sad.
Thank you for a well thought out post.
Prison-Planet SPAM !!!!!!!!!!!! WTH !!!!!!!!!!!
We are just keeping an element of truth here.
If you can't handle it go watch the Cartoon Network, otherwise grow up, and learn something. America didn't get into this mess with smart people at the helm that's for damned sure.
Fixed news is the cartoon networks equal when it comes to news broadcasts. Where the two differ is the cartoon networks viewers have much higher IQ's even though most of them are toddlers.
I also agree with you about smart people not being at the helm when this country went into the crapper... Seeing how the country goes into the shitter every frickin time one of your repugnut wingnut brothers is president I totally agree with ya about them not being smart. They leave a mess for the dems to clean up every frickin time.
OK LS, you admit to loving monopolies. I think that is the Libertarian solution.
I love cartoon network.
I would just like to point out that "back to the jungle?" starts from two basic assumpations that define the way the rest of the argument develops. First is the assumption that the 'free market' and 'governmental action' are two distinct spheres of social activity. This ignores the role of government in creating markets and ensuring their proper operation. Public policy legitimizes, recognizes, and backs up with enducement and force property rights necessary to ensure credible commitment and long-term trade in 'free markets.' 'Free-market' trade relies on governmental intervention for its existence. Putting this technical aspect aside, even neo-classical propontents of a free-market economy (as libertarians are) allow for the fact that there are a series of instances where 'free market' cooperation produces sub-optimal social outcomes. Specifically, these include instances involving public goods, natural monopolies, social externalities, information asymmetries, and thin markets. Several social policies, like univeral healthcare, public regulation of technically sophisticaed industries, and environmental policies are advocated, even by free-market advocates, to overcome some of these instances of 'free markets' producing sub-optimal outcomes.
Second, you're talking about 'free markets' as an aggregate of individual decisions that maximize individual benefits. Let's be real. That's Adam Smith. We both know that. It completely ignores the existence of corporations, because coroporations didn't exist until 150 years after Adam Smith died. Large corpoartions are the backbone of the modern economy. They create the most jobs and invest in the most technology. But coporations are exceptions to the way 'free markets' operate and work to overcome problems associated with buying and selling on a small, localized scale. Smith's late 1700s logic ignores the way capital markets operate, and it completely ignores the way global capitalism is structured and functions. Simply put, it's irrelevant today.
One last thing. I agree on the point that the concept of the Hobbesian 'state of nature' or what's called 'the rule of the jungle' above cannot be equated with Social Darwinism. The first was developed several hudred years ago to explain why governments and society formed and exist and the second was manufacurted in the 1920s using pseudo-Darwinian evolutionary theory to justify racial injustice, eugencis, and the plight of the poor. The two ways of thinking are in no way related, whether in libertarianism or liberalism. That's why the ending confuses me. How is this proven simply by turning the tables and saying that actually the other side is what their in some way mistaking libertarinism to be? That leap by itself doesn't justify equating government with social darwinism and free markets with humanism. Liberalism is founded on the idea that peoplel are inherently good and naturally organize and cooperate at aggregated levels to improve individual and social outomces. This applies to economics the same as it applies to government. Both are the product of individual and group action and do not exist separately from those micro-level interactions. Both involve power and the allocation of resources beyond the control of any single individual. Neither is impervious to fault but both can improve social outcomes if they operate properly. But one big question that has never been answered, and may never be answered, is how the macro-level economy actually operates, and what the role of the government in that economy is and what it actually can and does do. Clearly, where we diverge is on how we answer that question, not on some balance between social darwinism and the 'rule of the jungle'.