Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
From: parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin)
Date: 5 Oct 92 04:37:01 GMT
 <1992Oct3.203813.12798@shearson.com> <parvin1.718214048@husc11> <1992Oct5.021852.25657@shearson.com>

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>parvin1@husc11.harvard.edu (Douglas Parvin) writes:
>>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>
>>>Whenever two people make an agreement in the free market, they are
>>>both engaging in a voluntary act. You want my $10 more than you want
>>                    *********
>>>the digital watch you are selling; I want the digital watch more than
>>>I want my $10. After the transaction is complete, we are both happier
>>>than when we started. Note that there are nothing but voluntary acts
>>>involved here.
>>
>>This classical approach is based on the assumption that utility is static.
>>That is, if I make a transaction my utility may change, but if I don't it
>>will remain the same.  Tell that to someone deciding whether to buy heat,
>>food, electricity, etc.
>>
>>Now you may make the claim that a truly free market would make these
>>commodities competitive and non-coercive, but that's a utilitarian conjecture
>>about the end result, far removed from this categorical type of argument.
>>
>>I'm sympathetic to many libertarian arguments, because I think the
>>world would be a better place for most without government
>>interference in many areas.  But if you're going to base your
>>legitimacy on simplistic categorical arguments like this, you can
>>count me out.  

>I don't understand your argument here at all. Are you saying that
>violence is being threatened to one or more of the people engaged in
>an exchange in a free market? By definition, the exchange is no longer
>a voluntary one under such circumstances. In what way is an agreement
>between two people to exchange goods without either threatening force
>non-voluntary? I can't see how I'm being simplistic here.
>--
>Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com

Suppose it's the dead of winter, and you are the sole provider of heat in
my community.  Now I have three choices: I can move, I can freeze, or I can
buy your product.  So, assume I'm poor and have no place to move to.  I
then have the "choice" to buy your product or freeze to death.

Now you may say that the transaction is mutually beneficial.  Well, if you
mean it's better to pay any price than to freeze, I certainly agree.  So
in this narrow sense, you may claim that this transaction is consentual.  I
have no problem with that.

But that is a very narrow sense of consent.  And the problem with it is that
it is then often evoked as summary proof that a free market provides the
greatest benefits for all, by letting all "consentual" transactions take
place.

In most situations, the free market produces a Pareto optimal result, that is,
one in which there is no way for everyone to be made better off.  But that
leaves the possibility of well-placed controls greatly increasing the holdings
of almost all players in this market.  Now we can debate the effects of such 
ideas, but we can't write them off on the grounds that we are limiting "consent".
Because "consent", as presented in the above example, is meaningless in this
context.

This brings back my earlier point of non-static utilities.  If I have, say,
$1000, I can be bankrupted through "voluntary" transactions, even if I make
objectively correct decisions at each point. (You can replace money with
any "happiness" unit you want).

You certainly may claim that some, or all, regulation does not meet its
intended goals (See the huge ant-trust thread).  Or you can say that the
government doesn't have the "right" to interfere (Justice in acquisition,
justice in transfer, etc.).  But we shouldn't paint the free market as
inherently superior by definition, providing opportunity for all,
relying on this often-hollow notion of consent.
-- 
===========================================================================
Douglas Parvin
parvin1@husc.harvard.edu