Re: Libertarian Economics

Joao Pedro (
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 23:48:02 -0700


Thank you all for your replies, pretty much what you defend is economic
anarchy, although you don't use this word.

Eric Watt Forste wrote:
> I prefer
> voluntary solutions, perhaps as a matter of taste, and Coase has
> shown that voluntary solutions can work. I think Coase won a Nobel
> prize for this work.

Voluntary actions? You're talking of voluntary, unselfish actions from
the same species that constantly kills, destroys and robs other members
of the same species? I don't think that's possible in today's world,
there's just too many greedy and selfish persons.

> > Won't this corporations have too much power and therefore harming
> > everyone (the consumers and general public) but themselves?
> I doubt that they'd have as much power as governments do now,
> and governments often harm everyone (the consumers and general
> public) but themselves.

In all your messages there is a hate towards government, I also despise
politicians but don't corporations 'own' the government, even in the
U.S.? It's the same thing, the same problem. wrote:
> If any corp starts exploiting...they go broke...(absent government
> meddling)...monopolies are only possible in a controlled economy...can't
> happen in a free market...negative feedback..

I'll be honest, I don't know what negative feedback is and I know
nothing of basic economics but I always knew that "united we stand,
divided we fall". If a corporation starts achieving a substantial
advantage towards everyone else, as it grows, it will eventually become
more efficient, more capable, will be able to have the most competitive
prices and therefore, will achieve a monopoly status. Right? (I see that
in Portugal every time, small shops complaining about big commercial
centers and supermarkets) wrote:
> If the consumer wants environmental issues addressed, the consumer will get
> environmental issues addressed.

I think that this sentence is a good example of a very important detail
you seem to forget.
In this list, and even in the internet, the average person is from a
much higher social scale and much higher intellectual level than the
rest of the population. IMHO, most persons are stupid, plain stupid.
Besides, many persons are also selfish and greedy. The consumer, the
common citizen doesn't know and doesn't care about environmental issues.
I'll give you an example, one of the first countries to urge for serious
measures to prevent global warming was Holland. Why? Not for altruistic
reasons, of course, but because part of Holland is below sea level, land
conquered to the sea by dams.
You talk about how the market will control big corporations and the
millions of consumers will lead the market into the best path, let me
ask you something, why is government so corrupt? People theoretically
control government (by voting) and still government is corrupt, why is
that? What makes you think that indirect control of economy by persons
is going to improve anything?

EvMick says that free-market works, my question is for whom, for the
persons who are already wealthy or for the ones who are poor and have
Since unselfish reasons rarely incentives anyone to do anything, let me
ask you something, do you think that the poorer classes generated by
free-markets will stand still? My bet is that they'll riot and that is
what I fear.

Finally, one more, last, thing, Chris R. Tame wrote:
> Doesn't anyone read books anymore? Why do so many people on the net ask
> elementary questions which are much more satisfactorily answered by
> going to the basic literature rather than by a flurry of incomplete or
> sketchy net responses? Who wants to spend time typing in elementary
> introductions to basic libertarian thought?

I read books, I find it, however, much less boring and time consuming to
ask other persons. Or do you read a book every time you have a doubt or
a question?

Thank you all for your replies,

         Hasta la vista...

"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen Visit my site at: