From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 06:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.143157.19681@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
}>	Please spare us.  If rent-a-cops had no business kicking in your
}>front door, this would be an initiation of physical force and -YES- that
}>would be coercion.  BTW, anarcho-capitialists see the likelihood of that
}>as being equivalent to a major supermarket installing an electrified
}>floor (harassing customers is a great way to do business -- agree?)
}
}In the past, many businesses did this.  Ford is the best example that 
}comes to mind.  He wanted his employees to live their lives according to
}his set of values, and he enforced it by sending detectives to search
}their houses.  A libertarian would say that they agreed to work for Ford,
}so they agreed to let people search their houses, but these people had 
}little choice.  Besides what is preventing companies from using physical
}force?  And what if physical force is mentioned in the contract?

First of all, this would be covered by contract.  If Ford wanted his
employees to pray to Mecca every morning, specified so in the contracts,
and included specifications for verification if actual invasion of privacy
would otherwise hae been involved, that's the employer's right.

}>	Are you a left-anarchist?  Why shouldn't lefties kick down other
}>people's doors?  Are they inherently morally superior?  Then why assume
}>that the righties are not?
}
}I say that coercion is just as wrong if it comes from a government or a
}corporation.  If the government is removed and corporations are left to
}perform all of its functions, you still have a government, you just call
}it something else.

There's a good point to be made here, which is why I'm responding to it
rather than ignoring it like the other blather.  Why do we have coporations
which are so big, impersonal, alienating, controlling, etc.?  Is this the
sort of firm that would tend to arise on the free market, or is this the
result of statist intervention into the market?

One of the nice things about corrct economic theory (unlike what I suspect
you get from Mr. Bookchin) is that it makes this sort of thing rather easy
to predict.  There's a chronically recurring pattern of argument: a libertarian
claims that free markets tend towards good arrangements, a non-libertarian
points out a bad arrangement that occurred in a relatively free market in
the past, and the libertarian points out how this was a result of what
possibly little statist intervention there was at the time and place.

This is such a cliche!  But it's true.  We have all sorts of evil things
maing our corporations evil.  The Tax Code makes it more profitable for
financiers to run things than those who actually make the products.  It's
a full-employment act for accountants.  Limited Liability laws eliminate
one of the natural checks on the size of corporations.  Unions, environmental
and safety regulations have all eliminated small firms from the market -
such burdens fall heaviest on the marginal operators.

One example: after WWII, we had about 15 automakers in the US.  Then the
UAW had a strike, which killed off all but 4 of 'em.  We've had a practical
domestic automaker cartel ever since.  If it weren't for foreign competition,
we'd be in really bad shape!

This is a law of economics.  Find some case study of evil "capitalists" and
bet that the evil was really caused by statist intervention.  You'll win
enough of your bets to get rich if you bet rich socialists, until they get
wise to you.

The Southern Pacific Railroad "Octopus"?  Beneficiary of statist intervention.
Ross Perot's EDS?  Made his money off of Federal contracts.  That's why he
can afford to run for Pres., require his employees to be either single or
married, but not living in "sin", keep their salaries secret...


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire