mjk@tty3b.UUCP (06/28/83)
grkermit!chris states that one must challenge libertarians on the basis of their principles: "The Libertarian argument for government begins with an argument for individual rights. These rights are [claimed to be] necessary in order for an individual to be able to work productively and be able to count on being able to enjoy the benefits of the labor. That claim is what you need to argue about in order to convince libertarians that their concept of a just government is incomplete or bad in some other way." Speaking from a few years of experience of arguing with Libertarians in college, I don't think that's right. You point out to Libertarians how their system is totally unrealistic because it argues for a system (laissez-faire capitalism) without devising a plan to avoid what seems to be the inevitable result of capitalist development: monopolies and oligopolies. They are in a sense ahistorical because our own political history is one of government being forced to assume a regulatory role by the abuses of the free market. If one looks at the history of the development of organizations such as the ICC, one finds an essentially free market which quickly developed into an oligopolistic market (the Robber Barons et al) which then formed regulators to guard market share. In other cases (labor), the abuses were so outrageous as to require some form of intervention to preserve the system -- there was the possibility of a revolution over unionization. In parts of West Virginia and surrounding coal mining areas, there was open warfare between the goons hired by the coal operators and the union organizers. So this view that somehow "Big Government" just developed one day because some people were "too lazy to make it in the private sector" and decided they could do well in government is totally off base. The U.S. was once a free market economy and has come to be a mixed economy (although it still is less regulated than almost any other industrialized country in the world). It became that way through natural historical forces, and the basic drives of the capitalist system, not because some evil men plotted to tyrannize the nation with Big Government. Libertarians just pooh-pooh that and argue that all our problems would be solved in a free market. Just what are they going to do about Exxon, ITT, AT&T, IBM, GE, .... tty3b!mjk the development of our own economy and government. The government was
paul@uwvax.UUCP (06/30/83)
The premise of this article was that, in the past, free market enterprise went amok (robber barrons, etc.) and this led to the natural creation of gov't regulatory agencies. This was not really the case - at least it is not nearly as clear cut as the writer suggests. To a large extent gov't regulatory agencies, such as the ICC, were formed because they were *wanted* by certain big businesses (such as railroads) in order to then gain market advantages (such as state charters, exclusive monopolies, etc.). Therefore it seems like gov't itself created a huge problem. Rather than eliminate the agencies which caused the problem, though, gov't responds by giving more power to itself to solve the problems it created. The history of the rise of regulatory agencies in our market place seems to favor libertarian arguments, not disfavor them.
tim@isrnix.UUCP (07/01/83)
arguing with Libertarians about morality or politics is about like
trying to convince a solipsist that you exist!
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timtim@isrnix.UUCP (07/08/83)
So the only way that monopolies arise is through "Big Gov't" intervention?
How about Standard Oil? This is just one of many industrial monopolies
which had nothing to do with gov't regulation or intervention. Standard Oil
among others just outright took over the market!
There was a good reason for Gov't involvement in the Railroads just as
for building other highways-it allowed the railroads to use more efficient
routes by using the Gov't's power of eminent domain. Unfortunately that
was turned to a profit by many a Railroad magnate. However it would be
hard to argue that the effects of the railroads have been bad economically
any more than the effects of highways,airports, or canals sponsored by
the Gov't. It seems that Libertarians remain stubbornly myopic to
the reality of monopoly power despite even Adam Smith's admonition
that "one seldom finds merchants gathered in the same spot without
an attempt at restraint of trade. " (this is not an exact quote, unfortunately
I don't have "Wealth of Nations" at home with me)
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim