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

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:03:25 +0100
> From: Steve Mynott <stevem@tightrope.demon.co.uk>
> 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?

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


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 07:12:55AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > From: Steve Mynott <stevem@tightrope.demon.co.uk>
> 
> > 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?

whoever in a market by the division of labour finds it profitable will
write and enforce the laws

see David Friedman's

http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

for an explanation of how private courts and police could work

"Natural Law theory rests on the insight... that each entity has
distinct and specific properties, a distinct "nature", which can be
investigated by man's reason"  -- Murray N. Rothbard 

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

thats how economic thinking starts, or rather should start, and then
the economy is an array of these individual transactions..

police and courts provide a "middle man" function, so you would need
three participants

-- 
pgp 1024/D9C69DF9 1997/10/14 steve mynott <steve@tightrope.demon.co.uk>

    the first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.
        -- abbie hoffman

>> From: Steve Mynott <stevem@tightrope.demon.co.uk> there
>> are laws based on natural rights

At 07:12 AM 10/5/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Ok, who writes the laws? 

No one.

> Who enforces the laws? Who decides what is natural?

In the minarchist proposal, as explained by Bastiat, already
quoted on this thread, http://www.jim.com/jamesd/bastiat.htm
"the collective force", aka the minimal state.

In the anarchist proposal, explained by Spooner in "Natural
Law" http://www.jim.com/jamesd/spooner.htm, and myself in
"Anarcho Capitalism, a short summary"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/anarcho-.htm, anyone and everyone
decides.  Attempts to enforce unnatural law are more likely
to get one killed.

Friedman in "A positive account of property rights"
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Property/Property.html
explains why enforcing the law "Whats yours is yours, and
what is mine is mine" is less likely to get you killed than
attempting to enforce the law "Whats mine is mine, whats
yours is up for grabs" 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     y5lZXNb9KdI6G/J/Mw0QVE3D0Xa+BCJ1nJ9JZrgy
     4b6jnnkVkioQJ7SSLk7VTW3r694QFvcvfRB6H3dGp
-----------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because 
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this 
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald

Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:03:25 +0100
> > From: Steve Mynott <stevem@tightrope.demon.co.uk>
> > 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