<<
Ian Goddard wrote:
> Allocation of resources by consumer choice, by the voice
> of the people, founded upon the theory and application of private
> property, contract law, and tort liability consistently prove to
> yield maximal social outcomes [SNiP]
<<Banjo>> i disagree>>
Why? Do you have better alternatives? Better than. . . Capitalism?
What's wrong with consumer choice and the voice of the people?
Don't you agree with private property?
Or is contract law a problem for you?
Or, tort liability?
<< Banjo>>where is the proof ?>>
USSR (past, and for good reason past), Cuba, China and many other nations
don't let the consumer decide anything. It's all state controlled.
Contrast the capitalist countries with these. Where would you want to
live? No consumer choice, no property, and only contract law based on
government regulation of business deals. Who has maximized the social
outcomes more? I admit the US has increased the fascist-socialist
regulations (private property gun control e.g. Republicans) and the Democrats
have reduced freedoms ways resembling communism (increased taxation used for
welfare programs). But then, I'm a Libertarian and can see the US slipping
away from "Ian's maximum social outcomes".
<< how does "maximal social outcomes" coincide with high poverty,
homelessness, a stuffed-to-overflowing penal system, and as
Are you talking about the USSR and China? They are the lowest standard of
living I can think of in industrialized countries. They have high poverty
and overflowing prisons. The "homeless" in the US have the highest standard
of living than in "homeless"any other county. Even Jesus said the poor, they
will always be with us.
<< Dale Carnegie said a place where "...rich and poor are both free
to sleep under bridges".>>
Dale Carnegie? Mr. _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. You are free
to be rich or poor, it is up to you.
<<some people don't win in a market economy>>
This is not a meaningful statement. Some people are lazy, stupid or
pessimistic too. Tell me of a situation were most people win: Anytime you
pay for a product you want more than the money you spend. For me that's most
of the time. The fact that I don't "win" every time (Lose-win) makes up for
the times I (Win-Lose). In general most situations are Win-Win in a market
economy and the standard of living goes up. You make your own luck and for
some, the standard of living goes down or does so temporarily.
> simply because each individual is
> compelled to serve the consumer, the people, or suffer material
> privations. Privations which would not exceed those suffered had
> the individual chosen to forgo human association altogether, and
> therefore such privations cannot be measured as an initiation of harm.
<<Banjo>> i don't understand. are you saying that someone who "suffers
material
privation" (aka Poverty), deserves it. Is the market equivalent of
an outcaste or hermit ??>>
If a business is not compelled to serve the consumer, the consumer will not
(and should not) buy from that business again. That business DOES deserve
not getting business again. Call this an "outcaste" or "hermit" business.
But you don't have much of a business then do you. You have killed your own
business. This was not an initiation of harm except self-inflicted.
Dynamically Optimistic,
Davin
November 4, 1996
2:04 pm