From: gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch)
Subject: Re: free market
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: GrinchCo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:12:00 GMT

In article <BxJnvw.E5I@beach.csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes...
:In article <1992Nov9.105846.13999@genie.slhs.udel.edu> starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
:>In article <BxFyIE.J7B@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
:>}In article <8NOV199221071536@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
:>}>For those who care,  here's the essential argument for a free market:
:>}>
:>}>1) a free (uncoerced) transaction is beneficial to both parties (otherwise 
:>}>they wouldn't make the swap),  thus resulting in an increase of total utility.
:>}>
:>}>2) Any interference with the free market is effectively a constraint which
:>}>prevents utility-increasing transactions from taking place.
:>}
:>}  What if the transaction is harmful to third parties who are not participants
:>}in the transaction. This applies to all kinds of situations including victims
:>}of theft, victims of pollution, etc.
:>
:>That's easy.  They're coerced transactions.
: 
:  It's only easy if you're simple-minded enough to ignore the point. The
:effect on the third party is coerced but s/he is not party to the transaction
:itself, which may be uncoerced. The point is that regulation has a place in
:the so-called marketplace to avoid and or minimize these effects, whether
:intended or just irresponsible, on innocent third parties.
>

Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing:  Tim decides to grow
an orange,  which I want to buy from him.  Clearly Tim and I both benefit from
this transaction,  but because Tim has been allowed to sell his orange the
market price for oranges drops slightly,  so everyone else who buys oranges
benefits and everyone else who sells oranges is harmed,  and these other
innocent orange producers should be free to use the political process
to avoid and minimize the harm we have done them,  right?

Of course,  there's no reason the harm done to the other orange producers
exceeds the benefits done to the other orange consumers (in fact,  they
should be almost exactly the same),  but in general it will be much
easier for the producers to organize politically because there are fewer
of them.  


:>>
:>>Not all utility increasing is beneficial
:>>}to society as a whole or to anyone other than the immediate participants. That
:>>}is why completely free, unregulated markets are not appropriate in complex
:>>}societies with non-ideal participants and competing interests.
:>>
:>>Wrong, but where to begin refutation?  Some literacy in Austrian theory is
:>>required here.
:> 
:>  Cut the self-important hand-waving crap and make your point to us poor,
:>ignorant slobs or just admit you don't have one.
:>

Again,  asuming you're just talking about the market effects of a transaction
on third parties

1) The total effect on all third parties should sum up to very nearly zero
2) The government isn't going to be able to see all effects on third parties
3) Some groups are much more capable of using the political process to
benefit "their side" than others.

Mr. Grinch
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian