Why I Am a Free Market Fundamentalist

LFET ^ | Tibor R. Machan

[RightWhale]

Jefferson considered many questions in the light of tyranny. That is, would the taking of the corridor for a Maglev line be considered a tyrannical act by the government? What would Jefferson say or write in a memo on his folding lap-desk?

[f.Christian]

Well, this trick is quite insulting and shouldn't be permitted to work. Market fundamentalism is simply being loyal to the principles of a free society, especially as it pertains to economics. Those who attempt to demean it are advocating some kind of political elitism where certain folks, maybe majorities, maybe demagogues, get to order the rest of us to do what they deem is right.

"I am urging that this scam be rejected in favor of, yes, unabashed market fundamentalism.

Those who attempt to demean it are advocating some kind of political elitism where certain folks, maybe majorities, maybe demagogues, get to order the rest of us to do what they deem is right."

This is exactly what has already happened in in govt.-schools-education-science...evolution/atheism----'libbertearalien'-taliban!

[tpaine]

I think you are misquoting Jeffersons 1812 comment to pick a bone on a point the author never made.

There is no mention of 'property rights' in the threads article that I can see. Can you?

10 posted on 8/2/02 10:10 AM Pacific by tpaine

---

You don't think "property rights" have anything to do with capitalism and "market fundamentalism"???

---

You were critiquing the author, not me.

There is no mention of 'property rights' in the threads article that I can see. Can you?

What connection do you see between your views on "property rights" and the authors on capitalism and "market fundamentalism"???

[tpaine]

Reality is not what some imagine. This idea of public property is at the core of many of our arguments on FR. Probably 99% don't 'get' it.
Some will wave the Constitution like a magic wand while displaying the 9th amendment and ignoring the 4th and 5th Amendments, which doesn't help at all. -rightwhale -

---

Yes, many narcissisticly assume that property rights are a given, and government only exists to protect those rights without any obligation on their part to contribute to the community which forms that government.
Jefferson refutes that assumption much more eloquently than I.

---

And many wave narsissic wands while accusing others of the same.
Jefferson did not refute that assumption in your 1812 quote.

[Willie Green]

That is, would the taking of the corridor for a Maglev line be considered a tyrannical act by the government? What would Jefferson say or write in a memo on his folding lap-desk?

Although Jefferson could not have posssibly imagined the marvels of Maglev technology, there is no doubt that he would have recognized Government's right of eminent domain in the acquisition of public rights-of-way for travel and transportation purposes.

As far as public funding of such endeavors, it can be truthfully stated that, while Jefferson generally approved of such public funding, he also deplored the potential for abuse such projects presented.

"A most powerful objection always arises to propositions of [public works]. It is that public undertakings are carelessly managed and much money spent to little purpose."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1784. Papers 7:27

"I experience great satisfaction at seeing my country proceed to facilitate the intercommunications of its several parts, by opening rivers, canals and roads. How much more rational is this disposal of public money, than that of waging war."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Ross, 1786. ME 5:320

"I view [a proposition respecting post roads] as a source of boundless patronage to the executive, jobbing to members of Congress and their friends, and a bottomless abyss of public money. You will begin by only appropriating the surplus of the post office revenues; but the other revenues will soon be called into their aid, and it will be a source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1796. ME 9:324

"The fondest wish of my heart ever was that the surplus portion of [those] taxes destined for the payment of that debt [contracted in the Revolutionary war] should, when that object was accomplished, be continued by annual or biennial re-enactments and applied in time of peace to the improvement of our country by canals, roads and useful institutions, literary or others; and in time of war to the maintenance of the war."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:354

Of course nobody can say for certain what position Jefferson would take on Maglev. However, he is generally recognized for having been a "Renaisance Man" of his era, very inquisitive and appreciative of scientific invention. Combined with his advocacy of American liberty, independence and self-sufficiency, I like to believe that he would have supported construction of mass-transportation systems as a means of alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. Of course, being as frugal as he was, he would also have been extremely watchful over the sensibility of such expenditures.

[Willie Green]

There is no mention of 'property rights' in the threads article that I can see. Can you?
What connection do you see between your views on "property rights" and the authors on capitalism and "market fundamentalism"???

Your efforts to restrict the vocabulary used in discussion of economic concepts to that employed by the author is hysterically adolescent. If you see no connection between "property rights", "capitalism" and "market fundamentalism", then there is no reason for anybody on this thread to take your input seriously.

[RightWhale]

You're right on track. Jefferson was one of the brighter lights in a group of unusually bright men. They gave this Republic the best possible start, but how long will it continue?

[tpaine]

Whatever.
You can't make your point about the author, - so you attack me. Typical. - And thanks.

[Willie Green]

Whatever.
You can't make your point about the author, - so you attack me. Typical. - And thanks.

Yeah, yeah, we know. It's all about you.
You get a chance to participate in an intelligent discussion on economic philosophy, and all you do is try to play the little elusive political spindoctor with the semantics.
How boringly superficial!
What's the matter? Is your libertarian peabrain so fried on drugs that you can't grasp such intellectual concepts?
Heck, even that tutti-fruitti weikel tried to contribute when he babbled "Democracy needs to go as well."
Yeah, you're right tpaine. It's all about you.
Pot will amplify your paranoia like that.
The government is out to suppress all your rights.
Everybody you talk to attacks you because they disagree with you.
Poor little tpaine. Nobody understands. They just don't get it.
Nobody likes you, everybody hates you.

Let us know when you get out of rehab, tpaine.

[tpaine]

You are freaking out again willie. Calm yourself.
And see someone, - your OCD about libertarians is getting worse.

[Willie Green]

LOL!

"Whatever", dude.
If you think I'm "freaking out", then I guess I must be "freaking out".
If nothing else, I do acknowledge that libertarians gotta be freaking experts on "freaking out".

[billybudd]

And as Jefferson so eloquently points out "Government must be established and laws provided... and determine the conditions of the grant"

Actually, this is a total misquote of what Jefferson said. Look at the quote again:
"Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."

You forgot about the "till then" and assumed Jefferson was advocating that the government arbitrarily grant land to individuals, based on arbitrary conditions. That's not what he's saying at all. He's contrasting two states of nature. The first state is the one in which land property is temporary and arbitrary. After a government is established, the property is permanent and secure. I believe this is fairly clear from the quote.

[billybudd]

I consider myself an unabashed supporter of private property and free markets. However, I always find something frustrating about commentary in support of free markets. I think it's because most of this commentary is presented in a negative sense; it is against government, against regulation, against taxes. In other words, against the status quo. The only speculation on the performance of markets is limited to particular issues and particular contexts. There is never an overarching presentation of what a free market society might look like. Maybe this is because it has never existed.
The free market advocate can easily describe how a laissez-faire economy would function, but only by assuming certain things about the political context within which the economy resides (like property rights, political stability, etc.). This tendency to overlook the political economy is deadly to "free market fundamentalism". It assures that laissez-faire capitalism as a philosophy will always be in a state of intellectual limbo, as if hanging in mid-air. Capitalist thought will be relegated to mathematical analysis, as it is today.
Believers in the free market I think tend towards either of two ways of dealing with this limbo. First, by making assumptions about certain aspects of government which must exist in utopia, and then whining when they fail to materialize. Their response to this disappointment is to argue that there are many wonderful benefits if only the government would behave in this or that way, never bothering to question how or why the government might reach such a state. The second, and far more ignorant, view is that government should cease to exist and be replaced with a "market anarchy". The proponents of this view don't realize that anarchy is the same as government with respect to relations of force, that your property can be looted by one big thug or many small thugs. You cannot avoid the economy of force just as you cannot avoid the economy of trade. The only thing you can do is alter its structure while observing economic laws.
So, this is my long-winded view of this article and others like it. I'm just tired of the constant rehashing of dogma which doesn't address the real problems facing the free market philosphy.

[Willie Green]

After a government is established, the property is permanent and secure. I believe this is fairly clear from the quote.

Yes, "till then" certainly implies that the establishment of government is a prerequisite to the establisment of property rights. But he also states that it is up to government to "determine the conditions of the grant." It is this constraint that the author of the ariticle rails against in anarchist fashion.

[billybudd]

Again, you are completely misreading the quote. Here it is again:
"Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."

Jefferson contrasts the state of government and the state of anarchy and says that in the state of anarchy the tribe or the chief have to grant land on an individual basis and with arbitrary conditions. Jefferson does not say that government determines conditions of a land grand. He is actually saying the exact opposite - that government offers property owners unconditional protection once the property is appropriated.

[f.Christian]

The innumerable government regulations already on the books and now being proposed not only seem not to be able to wipe out occasional business mal-practice but constitute a kind of democratic lynch mob action, this time on the futile grounds of precaution or prevention. By that argument the very idea of innocent until proven otherwise could be tossed and the creeping totalitarianism of police states unleashed. (Moreover, proponents of this idea are naïve in holding that regulators are immune to corruption!)

The anatomy of tyranny via idealism----denial of reality/human nature; i.e., fascism---state economic control!

[Willie Green]

Jefferson does not say that government determines conditions of a land grand.

Sure he does.
Just who do you think Jefferson is referring to when he mentions "the body of the nation" or "their chief as trustee"???
Thomas Jefferson is quite eloquent in his prose, and he doesn't limit his vocabulary to a dull, redundant and boringly repetitious use of government, government, government, government, government... every time he is referring to government.

But it is quite clear from the quote that "the body of the nation" or "their chief as trustee" or GOVERNMENT is the one who determines the conditions of the grant.

[billybudd]

No, no, no. He specifically distinguishes "body of the nation" and "chief" from "government". You refuse to acknowledge the "till then". This is what he is saying: Governments are necessary to protect property. However, till then, meaning, before government is instituted, the body of the nation or the leader has to assign land on an individual basis, with arbitrary conditions attached. Jefferson eloquently makes this distinction. I can't see why you refuse to acknowledge that Jefferson says "till then" to denote something that happens before government exists.

[headsonpikes]

"...those who want to rule others don't much like principles."

'Be reasonable, Mr. Galt, or we'll have to use other methods...';^)