THE IRON FIST BEHIND THE INVISIBLE HAND ZOTTED

Manorialism, commonly, is recognized to have been founded by robbery and usurpation; a ruling class established itself by force, and then compelled the peasantry to work for the profit of their lords. But no system of exploitation,including capitalism, has ever been created by the action of a free market. Capitalism was founded on an act of robbery as massive as feudalism. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable.

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

"Manorialism, commonly, is recognized to have been founded by robbery and usurpation; a ruling class established itself by force, and then compelled the peasantry to work for the profit of their lords."

Let me assume that you wish to apply this statement to the United States later on in your essay. The problem with your "ruling class" theory, is that if the "ruling class" fails to represent the wishes of the other classes, then those members of the "ruling class" won't stay in their position of power for a very extended period of time. (Unless you happen to be a judge, which isn't quite on topic, but I find it relevant given the present political situation).

"But no system of exploitation,including capitalism, has ever been created by the action of a free market."

It really depends on what you mean by "exploitation." I'm afraid unless I have a good definition for this, that I can't respond very well. Let me try to respond to a couple of common definitions: If exploitation means "taking advantage of the lower classes," then then I would say that no real system *can* exist without higher financial classes tin order to help employ the lower classes. If by exploitation you mean taking advantage of an opportunity, then I would say criticizing people who take advantage of honest opportunities is socialist at the least, and more likely founded in communist ideals.

"Capitalism was founded on an act of robbery as massive as feudalism."

This seems to be more of an argument against what Capitalism has done rather than what it is supposed to do. So, in response allow me to point out some of the good things that have come from Capitalism: 1.) The search for the cure for cancer 2.) Treatment for aids patients. 3.) An end to the first and second world wars. 4.) Better than tenement style housing. 5.) Top rate medical technology. Also, if what you defend is some kind of communist/socialist ideology, I would like to point out that most of the heroes of Communism/Socialism were worse than robber barons: they were mass murderers.

"It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable."

Once again, I must disagree. The argument should not be about whether or not it has been sustained by the state, it should be whether or not it can be sustained with positive results. Saying that capitalism is bad because the government had to make adjustments in the way it operated is like saying that a general should never change his battle plan. The original plan will never survive contact with reality. This is true in nearly every case you can come across.

"The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market."

I don't see how this is really all that bad. So the government placed regulations to help people from robbing each other blind. What's the problem?

"From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline."

You can thank FDR for a very many of the subsidies enjoyed today. Personally I see them as sucking the economy dry. In all honesty though, I don't see this "privilege" that you are talking about. So farmers get extra money for making more food than they should, how does this privilege the upper class in any way?

"Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system."

No. Most Libertarians would vomit at the thought of subsidy and privilege for the upper class. I still don't see how subsidy gives "privilege" to the upper classes.

"Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "The Coercion in creating Capitalism." Are you referring to the American Revolution when the colonists beat the snot out of the British upper class, and took the rights that they honestly deserved, or are you talking about some other founding of the United States?

"Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism."

Until you can really provide evidence that it creates a "robber baron capitalism," then I won't be able to really effectively respond, but once again, I will try to oblige you: By talking about this 19th century robber baron capitalism, I will assume you mean those businesses that figuratively owned the souls of their employees. The Ideal libretarian state is not illustrated by this period. In the ideal libertarian state, a very small patent duration would allow entrepreneurs to rise up and compete against the giants of industry. Inevitably, the giants would either be forced out of business by better quality products, or they would remain in business by increasing the quality of their own merchandise.

"Should the right/priviledge of Eminent Domain be extended to corporations?"

What do you mean by "Eminent Domain?"

"In the process of constructing a privatized infrastructure such as a toll road or a private airport, wouldn't the expropriation of subject real-estate/properties, for the sake of a special interest's business venture, not be tantamount to dictatorship if subject citizens are denied their right for arbitrarily high compensation in the face of possibly involuntary relocation not imposed for the public interest?"

I have a real problem with this sentence. If I were to respond to this, I would be undermining myself. Not because it is really any threat to my position, but because it contains both the words "wouldn't" and "not." So if I respond to this with anything resembling rationality, you could say that I am supporting your position, which is clearly not the case.

"When can one justify the violation of the supremacy of private citizenry rights, be it to property or privacy, on behalf of economic interests?"

When someone has stolen the means of someone else's livelihood? Like if I steal your sheep, and you are a sheep farmer. That would be a justification for violating your "right to privacy."

"Does the "free market", the enigmatic "invisible hand", always know best?"

Yes.

"Do free market principles always apply, and if not, when do they not apply?"

Yes, they apply in all circumstances.

"I'm convinced that free markets are a fiction and that there is no "invisible hand" anywhere other than in heaven, where god and angels reign and reside, exclusively."

Allow me to be skeptical of your sudden burst of spirituality. Personally, I am a born again Christian, and I would say that any spiritual person worth their salt and light, would say that God's hand is not confined exclusively to Heaven. I don't see how this has much to do with economic policy at all.

"In the real world, businessmen are kept honest and able to serve the public by market forces, i.e. competition, supply and demand."

No. Even market forces can't keep men honest. If a man is determined to cheat and steal, even if his conscience tells him otherwise, he will cheat and steal. Men are kept honest by their upbringing, and in knowing who they are.

"When the supply is limited and the demand is virtually infinite, i.e. when there is no competition, free market principles do not apply, and therefore the invisible hand goes numb."

This is why free-market supporters want to abolish copyrights, and patents. You can eliminate limited supply by doing these things. Inevitably, some things are going to be expensive. What's the problem with that?

"Instead, monopolistic forces then are tempted to dominate: Uncompetitive price gouging, and without oversight and regulation, poor service if not outright exploitation of the consumer."

Once again, abolish patents, and copyrights, and watch it all go away.

"Instead, monopolistic forces then are tempted to dominate: Uncompetitive price gouging, and without oversight and regulation, poor service if not outright exploitation of the consumer. Examples abound: Enron's gaming of California energy markets, US's privatized health care system (where HMO profits trump medical care quality & service), no-bid contract rewards for Iraq invasion to Halliburton (which gouges the taxpayer, exorbitantly), shoddy airline maintenance (while high-speed rail competition remains absent), etc..."

Once again my response would solve the problem. Get rid of patents and copyrights, or make the duration periods for them dramatically shorter. Also, I would like to take this tie to take offense at what you have just said: My family has a history working for Halliburton. Both of my grandfathers as well as my father have been employees of Halliburton, and I will have you know that people employed by Halliburton are some of the best people I know (this is not limited solely to my extended family).

"Market forces do act in some sectors, such as bagels and doughnuts, but only because adequate diversity and flexibiliy on the supply side permits competition, and consumers can choose."

Hence, we should get rid of patents and copyrights.

"Where this is not possible, such as for infrastructure (energy pipelines, water supplies, roadways, railroads) and a variety of services (broadcasting, cable/satellite TV, mining, forestry,...) requiring limited public resources in the domain of land, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum, etc..., the nature and quality of competition is diminished as access to those resources cannot be guaranteed equitably, and inevitably inequitable processes impede to limit the quality and reliability of the service provided in those sectors."

I disagree. I am in favor of the privatization of all services and industries short of the military. This would definitely increase the quality of infrastructure services, and might solve the California energy crisis altogether.

"In other words, a corporation managing the private roadway connecting two towns can minimize roadway maintenance and charge arbitrarily high fees if alternative roads do not exist AND no laws coerce the management to maintain some standards, aka regulation."

I disagree once more. An entire community would collapse if this were to occur. Businesses would not function because of the high tolls, and hence there would be no need for employment in the area. So you can see, that no one would live their to pay the tolls. The private corporation would collapse from the weight of any taxes its own employees were forced to pay.

"Regulation, however, requires public intervention, i.e. government... the invisible hand won't do it, as it prefers to maximize profits and minized effort; perhaps that's why it's invisible, as it prefers to be hidden in the pocket counting the dough instead of visible for all to see and hard at work..."

Given your scenario, the private company would fail within a few years. This would allow for more honest people to come through and maintain the road better, or perhaps they could learn the same lesson over again.

"Note that multiple toll-roads connecting the same towns could provide competition, but they would be redundant and too limited in diversity to enable those desireable market forces... and how much eminent domain must the public tolerate merely to enable corporate competition?"

I know of a city not far from where I live. It has two toll roads leading into it, and two roads that don't have tolls. people will go several miles out of their way in order to avoid paying a toll at this place. The scenario you have hypthesized dictates that the roads would not exist because it is redundant. I suggest you go to your local library and take note how redundant some of the law books their are. Just because something is redundant does not mean it will not take place. In answer to your question: however much they feel like tolerating.

" At what point is enough ENOUGH?"

When it's enough. Obviously.

"Quality of life isn't enabled by competition alone, and some would argue it is diminished by competition: In well-mannered, civilized families, every family member is entitled to the same quantity of food at the dinner table, and all children are entitled similar educational and recreational opportunities, commensurate with aptitude, etc... this is understood as fair and equitable, while the opposite (priviledges for one child, not another) is not."

The problem with the word "fair," is that it means different things to different people. Sure, if one person in the family wanted to go to school, it would be fair to let them, but to expect the next child in the family to go to school and then force them to go to school, would not necessarily be fair. You see, in this example, it is fair to let one child to go to school where it is not fair to let another go to school. I would like to point out that the word fair is relative. (Good and Evil are not negotiable). So, in the same way forcing someone to go to school is unfair, allowing someone who will not work or conceive ideas for the betterment of his financial standing should not be granted monetary subsidy. In the words of a very wise man: "If you do not work, neither shall you eat."

"Laissez faire economics works sometimes, but usually government oversight is essential. Removing all regulations creates nothing short of a feudalistic society of a few haves dominating the have-not multitudes... an uncivilized outcome."

I would have to disagree once more. You see, feudalism collapses inevitably. This is evidenced by the fact that there aren't any more feudalism's around today. Capitalisms, while government intervention to prevent unethical practices like theft is necessary, cannot even be graded on the same scale as a feudalistic economy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.