Paul Hughes writes:
> I challenge anyone on this list to demonstrate how
> free-markets can exist without a feudalist tyranny
> resulting. Demonstrate how such a system will not favor
> the rich over poor when it comes to basic civil rights and
> justice.
If you look at history over the past 150 years in the United States,
I think we see the opposite. Society has moved to restrict the power of
big business, rather than to enhance it. We have gone from the days of
trusts, monopolies, robber barons, child labor, union busting, 60 hour
work weeks, and similar so-called excesses of 19th century capitalism to
a world in which there are many legal restrictions on the activities of
businessmen. These changes were bitterly opposed by business interests.
Now, I don't think we can accept all of the mythology that has grown
around this history as literally true. But it does seem to me that
contrary to your prediction, the interactions of business and society
can and do lead to reductions in the power of business, rather than
the opposite.
And the reason should be clear; it is because of the effect I
described earlier, that there are other sources of power in society.
Business interests are countered by political groups, by labor unions,
by consumer groups. All of these wield power. Business itself is often
divided as one group seeks leverage over another.
> If you can't, then you should stop complaining
> when people call you fascists or at best platocracists.
> Sure companies are there to meet the demands of the consumer
> and stockholders, but that just goes to show you that he
> with the most money - rich consumer, rich stockholder makes
> all the rules.
Your critique seems to have two relatively distinct parts. One talks
about how big business can influence government to increase its power.
This does happen in some circumstances, raising the question of whether
a government could be constructed without such "bugs". That's a big
issue and I won't try to get into it here.
However the other part you have complained about would apply even
if there were a libertarian government that did not interfere in any
voluntary activities. You seem offended that business will direct its
efforts in such a way as to maximize its profits, rather than working
altrustically to help "little people".
You talk here about businesses serving rich consumers. Earlier you
complained about businesses firing people.
This is a much weaker criticism. Although it is true that some businesses
go after the rich, the market is highly diverse and there are plenty of
companies which sell to the little guy. After all, you're a little guy
and yet you buy from companies every day, don't you? You do business with
thousands of different companies. Why do they bother to sell to you?
Why do they work so hard to come up with products that you will like?
They're not interested in selling only to the rich.
> Who is there to protect the little guy? If
> you don't give a damn about the little guy, then I rest my
> case.
If you're talking about voluntary transactions in the marketplace,
protection not an issue in most cases. If you're talking about the
government-controlled legal system, then I agree that protection is
desirable, but unfortunately no one has yet come up with a government
which has managed to stay immune to the corrupting influence of power.
Certainly getting rid of big business won't solve that problem, of the
Soviet Union (which was founded on rhetoric similar to yours) would have
been a utopia.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:12 MDT