From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Subject: Re: Libertarians/programmers was [misc.acti...]
Organization: University of North Carolina
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:20:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.220143.3518@seas.gwu.edu> sheryl@seas.gwu.edu (Sheryl Coppenger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.163516.4229@samba.oit.unc.edu> bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden) writes:
>>
>>	I would say that most libertarians hold "abuse of economic power"
>>to be definitionally impossible.
>
>What about the concept of monopoly?  Say Joe Richdude doesn't like your
>building a better mousetrap for less money and buys all your suppliers
>then refuses to continue to manufacture (or continue to supply) an essential
>piece.  You can't manufacture it yourself because you don't have the
>startup money for a second manufacturing concern (although you might have
>had eventually if he hadn't cut you off at the knees).
>

	Having read this entire post, I'm going to try to respond to your
claims.  It seems like you've decided your not interested in
Libertarianism, since were not a grave threat to statism at this time, why
are you here?  But anyway.  
	The scenerio you present is somone controlling an industry by
buying all of the second chain industries.  He thaen has an interesting
problem.  Controlling multiple industries.  For example in your mousetrap:
 scrap metal, lumber, and machine tools.  That's quite a large chunk of
the economy.  Who but the govt. could ever come up with that much cash?
	Even if someone could, what's to prevent another entrapenour from
creatinganother scrap metal, or machine tools plant?  Gillette did a
something very similar to what you are describing for years (they bought
up all pattents on improvments to razor blades). Even with this strategy
men today get cheaper, vastly suppior razors in an ultra competetive
market.  Basically it didn't work!

>Also, how do Libertarians feel about "company towns" where people were
>paid in scrip instead of money and could only buy things with it in the
>company store?

	Hey, that's a private currency and everyone involved agreed to it.
 Sounds like 19th century equivelent of the barter system to me.

>
>Libertarianism is not new to me, I met my first Libertarian about 10
>years ago.  I've heard the arguments about fraud and coercion, but there
>seems to be an assumption that everyone will have a reasonable amount of
>negotiating power so that anything that looks like it is unfair is only
>the result of stupidity on the victim's part if there's no physical
>coercion.  I just don't buy it.  
>

	That's true, that's the basic libertarian tactic.  But just
because you've heard an argument before does not make it false.  I've
heard that 2+2=4 lots of times; should I dismissis the truth of this
statement?

>I also have a problem with the idea that people who don't have enough 
>money for food and housing should be expected to save 20 to 30 percent 
>of their income to start a business or send the kids to Harvard or
>whatever.  The question of whether or not one believes the state (or
>Harvard for that matter) should pay for their education instead is 
>independent of the logic of the expectation or the fairness of labeling a 
>person lazy or stupid because they do not fulfill the expectation.
>

	I'm losing you here.  It seems like arguing with your friend from
ten years ago.  I labled a hypothetical homeowner as stupid because he
didn't bother to make sure he could get out of his house.  He's a
hypothetical person, and his kids never came up?

>>[stuff about egress deleted]
>>
>>	Basically a libertarian would hold that the above is your fault,
>>due to lack of planning and forsight.
>>
>>__JMB
>>
>
>Of course a classic joke is that if a meteor fell on your house and
>destroyed it, the Libertarian would say it was your own fault for
>choosing a bad location. :-)
>

	Well the stuff about egress and ingress was the heart of the
previous argument, so to casualy deleted it, is a quote a bit out of
context.  As for your meteor there is a thing called disastor insurance,
which covers you against all the silly stuff that can go wrong with a
house.  

>-- 
>
>Sheryl Coppenger    SEAS Computing Facility Staff	sheryl@seas.gwu.edu
>		    The George Washington University	(202) 994-6853          

--JMB


Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:3017 comp.org.eff.talk:8296 alt.amateur-comp:465 soc.culture.usa:9446 alt.activism:20029