Matt Gingell wrote:
> > Then government is optimal. Model the historical evolution of top-down
> >> control as a bottom-up market process and the aggregate result of billions
> >> of locally rational, self-interested decisions. If you don't think the best
> >> political/economic system won the market, you're just another mistaken
> >> experttrying to out-guess the emergent result.
> >This is one of the places where I think anarchists are a bit clueless. A
> >market can operate only in the absence of force. It works only because all
> >of the decisions made by the participants are voluntary, and each
> >participant makes local trade-offs in the way that best suits his own
> >desires. The moment you introduce actors that have the ability to compel
> >others to do things at gunpoint, this is no longer the case. Instead of
> >evolving in the direction of satisfying the desires of all participants, the
> >system then evolves to satisfy the desires of those who have access to force
> >at the expense of those who do not.
> This is the argument for antitrust legislation, and I absolutely
> agree with you.
antitrust legislation merely changes the market to one where it evolves
to satisfy those willing and able to bribe the government into breaking
up their competitors. In an anarchy, everyone will be armed, so nobody
has a monopoly on force, and nobody can force others to their bidding.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:57 MDT