There Are 28 Responses So Far. »

1. Comment by Steve Hogan on 13 November 2008:

   Thank goodness George W is fading from the public scene in a couple months. His daily absurdities were jeopardizing The Onion’s existence.

2. Comment by Jim Davidson on 14 November 2008:

   That was Bush’s point. There’s no need to dismantle the free market. He finished the job that Clinton and his father started.There’s something of the “don’t throw me in the briar patch,” Br’er Rabbit vibe here.

3. Comment by Sheldon Richman on 14 November 2008:

   Jim, I’m afraid the dismantling started longer ago than that. In fact, “dismantling” may be the wrong word. When was it truly mantled?

4. Comment by Jim Davidson on 15 November 2008:

   Gee, Sheldon, sure. Reagan did a bunch of dismantling.When was it mantled? How about Boston in 1774? Let’s say from at least 16 December 1773 until, say, 20 May 1774 when the Massachusetts Government Act was passed by parliament, plus about 60 days to get troops to Boston.

5. Comment by Sheldon Richman on 15 November 2008:

   Lincoln did his share of dismantling, adopting Henry Clay’s old American Plan. But you can go further back than that. As far as my question about “mantling,” Jonathan Hughes and Robert Higgs have well documented the extent of government economic intervention at the state and local levels from early on, even colonial times. The Feds were never fully hands-off either; and land-speculation among the well-connected was rampant. See my article “The Rent-Seeking Habit.”

6. Comment by planetaryjim on 16 November 2008:

   FDR did his share of dismantling. George Washington led 15,000 troops to prevent a free market in whiskey. Yes, I’m sure we can find a dismantled free market in colonial times. You don’t seem to have addressed nor acknowledged my statement about Boston in 1774. Or Fred Turner’s thesis on the American frontier before, say, 1893.Or are you saying that there has never been a free market anywhere, for any length of time? Of course, that’s not true, either. Every so-called “black” market is a free market. It does make me long for the days when a good day’s work involved finding a tax collector, tarring him, feathering same, and riding the remains out of town on a rail.

7. Comment by Sheldon Richman on 16 November 2008:

   I’m not sure about Boston in 1774, but I am confident that there was also government intervention there, if Jonathan Hughes, Robert Lively, and Robert Higgs are to be believes — as I think they are. Rent-seeking is ubiquitous. The first economic act of the first Congress was a comprehensive tariff — passed July 4, 1789. How’s that for an observance of Independence Day? We have been closer to a free market than we are today, but it was long ago and far from complete. Black markets are not fully free or we wouldn’t call them black markets.

8. Comment by Edward Krueger on 16 November 2008:

   “FDR did his share of dismantling. George Washington led 15,000 troops to prevent a free market in whiskey.” This looks ever more familiar if you know that Washington was the biggest whiskey producer at the time.I agree with Sheldon that black markets aren’t free. If they were free –that is that there was no force set up to destroy them,– then they wouldn’t be black markets they would just be markets.

9. Comment by planetaryjim on 16 November 2008:

   I find it odd that there is this lacuna in your knowledge. Boston in 1774 is widely regarded as a city without government. There are extensive primary source materials from people who wrote diaries and letters about how it was amazingly peaceful, people continued to do their business, everything was the way one would expect neighbors to treat each other, until the British marched in four thousand troops to occupy the city. I don’t know Hughes, Lively, nor Higgs. Maybe you can summon their spirits to this discussion. In any event, if they were living in Boston in 1774, and dispute the primary source materials I’ve seen, that would be interesting to know.You say that the first economic act of the first congress was a tariff, and then you write the year 1789. You seem to have forgotten that there was a Continental Congress much earlier than the one organised by the counter-revolutionaries of 1787.As to black markets being free, yes, they are. There are always forces set up to destroy markets, just as there are always self-important men and women who insist that they are from the gov’t and there to help. The market simply prices these costs in.

10. Comment by Edward Krueger on 16 November 2008:

    “The market simply prices these costs in.” Interesting. Therefore, a totalitarian state with no market is a free market. The market just prices in the costs of the government attacking those who would wish to trade and, in the totalitarian society, the costs are so high that no trade takes place. That is not a market.

11. Comment by Jim Davidson on 20 November 2008:

    Well, Ed, your straw man is demolished. So, here’s my thought. Shove it.I’ll go one better, FEE can shove off, too. They’ve seen the last dollar I plan to contribute.

12. Comment by Edward on 20 November 2008:

    I don\’t see how that is a straw man. A straw man is where someone misrepresents an argument or definition. I quoted yours. If any one is in doubt about your definition then they can look at the last post. Its right above my comment. I\’m not the one who set up the definition I just applied it to a situation. Unless we want the call that a free market, then we need to change the definition. Using an extreme example and showing that it fits the definition, is the most common way to attack a definition that is either too broad, or just completely inadequate. [I\'d say this one is too broad.] I could have used a less extreme example like the following, to the similar effect, but it wouldn’t have shown just how incomplete the definition was. A market where half of trades were stopped would by your definition be a free market, if the market priced the costs of government in. If you want to argue and tell me why I am wrong, go ahead.I do, now, realize I should have phrased the comment differently. I see how that was rude of me. However, I figured you could take after your condescending comments to Sheldon [and retrospectively your attack on me.]Also, I am only affiliated with FEE insofar as I have attended seminars with this organization. I would bet that you were already planing to stop donations to FEE, an my comment did not have any effect on that.

13. Comment by Al on 22 November 2008:

    I think it’s wonderful to find someone who has apparently taken a much different path to Libertarianism than the usual ones. It sounds like he’s got something important to teach us and I want to hear more. I’ll be checking out his blog, but the thin skin isn’t very attractive.

14. Comment by whysean on 22 November 2008:

    Wow. I go to FEE gathering and find out that there is a brand spanking new blog. I come home to log on and take a look at it, and here is Jim Davidson already getting into a flame war.I love you Jim. You are the best.

15. Comment by Edward on 24 November 2008:

    I’m willing to listen to what Jim says, but starting a flame war is not saying anything.

16. Comment by Edward on 24 November 2008:

    Oh, and its hardly a war, as I’m not fighting.

17. Comment by Sean Hastings on 24 November 2008:

    Oh goody – we can argue about the definition of “war” now. That should be super productive too.I find it odd that there is this lacuna in your knowledge concerning the concept of “Asymmetric warfare”…

18. Comment by Jim on 25 November 2008:

    You say that because I said that the free market prices in the cost of dealing with the state, everywhere the state is, that I am favoring a totalitarian society. You are a liar. You are a horrible person. I despise you. I despise FEE for giving you a forum for expressing your vicious and hateful lies.You are rude and unpleasant.I have been very pleasant in my comments to Sheldon. You have been deliberately rude in calling me an authoritarian who hates freedom and wants a totalitarian society. If you would like to say such evil, vicious, hateful, horrid lies to my face, then you’ll find out exactly how I react to despicable scum like you.

19. Comment by Sheldon Richman on 25 November 2008:

    Jim, there will be no flaming on this blog. No one called you anything This will be your only warning.

20. Comment by Sean Hastings on 25 November 2008:

    The issue of whether or not the “black market” is a “free market” reminds me of one of several “aha” moments in my life when I realized how badly most people’s thought processes actually work; how changing the name of something can make it a completely different thing in many people’s minds.It was sometime in the early 90′s after the Soviet Union had collapsed and Russia was supposedly trying to embrace capitalism. During that time I saw a news broadcast in the United States that showed footage from Russia of armed and armored police breaking down the door of a shop, deliberately kicking down shelves of various things for sale, and arresting the poor frightened shop keeper.The U.S. newscaster explained this footage by saying (with a totally straight face) that “Russian officials say that progress towards a free-market economy continues to be slow, as it is being constantly hindered by the existence of black marketeers such as the one shown being arrested here.”It might have been the very same week that I heard someone call into a talk radio show and say the equivalent of “I don’t think the taxpayers should have to pay for the savings and loan bailout – I think the government should pay for it…”

21. Comment by Edward on 25 November 2008:

    “You say that because I said that the free market prices in the cost of dealing with the state, everywhere the state is, that I am favoring a totalitarian society. You are a liar.”Jim, I never said anything of the sort. I know that you don’t like totalitarianism, that is why you should abandon the definition. I said that the definition is so broad that it would include totalitarianism.”I find it odd that there is this lacuna in your knowledge concerning the concept of “Asymmetric warfare”…”
    Hmm… maybe. However, if war is a matter of multiple states fighting and only one state is fighting, then there isn’t to be any war, there is just aggression.

22. Comment by Edward on 25 November 2008:

    Sean,Black Markets and Free Markets aren’t the same thing, they may have similarities, but are actually mutually exclusive. A Black Market is when people trade against the law. A Free Market is where there are no laws to prevent people from trading things.

23. Comment by Sean Hastings on 25 November 2008:

    Edward,You are suggesting that the passage of a law changes the nature of a thing. That the thing actually becomes something else when some guys in fancy clothing hundreds of miles away sign a piece of paper. Such thinking is the source of a lot of the misery in the world.

24. Comment by Edward on 25 November 2008:

    No. I’m saying the existence of force in a market changes things. The signing of the paper makes no difference. The paying of thugs to stop transactions does. If a free market changes into a black market there is a real loss.

25. Comment by Edward on 25 November 2008:

    Oh, I see where you are coming from.\"A Black Market is when people trade against the law. A Free Market is where there are no laws to prevent people from trading things.\"When I say law in the above passage, I amuse that the law will be enforced. Its the enforcement that makes the difference, not the signing of the paper.

26. Comment by Sean Hastings on 25 November 2008:

    Edward,No – that is not what you said. You said it was the existence of certain laws that change a “free market” into a “black market.” Now you are moving to the position that it is the willingness to use force against a thing and not the new law that changes the thing into something else.So now that we both now agree that you were wrong in your previous assertion that the passage of a law can change the nature of a thing, lets explore this new assertion that the existence of those willing to use force against something changes its nature. Or is it the actual use of force that makes the distinction and not just the willingness to use it?For example, if there are people in the world who would like to kidnap me, chain me up, and make me do involuntary labor for them, am I a “slave” based on their desire? Do I become a “slave” when they actually capture me? Or do I remain just a “man” who happens to be suffering a use of force, rather than becoming something different to be called a “slave”? If the later, then when I escape, I can still be a “man” rather than being forever thought of as an “escaped slave.”Similarly, is it a “free market” only until the cops decide they will start cracking down on such activities? Or does it remain a “free market” right up until the point the cops kick down the door, and only then does it become something different called a “black market” and the owner becomes a “black marketeer”?Accepting definitions based on either willingness to use or force or actual use of force would also seem to be a doorway to logical error. It is accepting that the nature of the thing changes somehow based on forces external to the thing.It might seem to be a silly argument over definitions and semantics, but I believe it is a very important one. I believe this because internalizing these derogatory terms based on the will of those with the greatest access to force makes a big difference in how people view the world. It makes the difference between people nodding their heads when the government announces that “we are cracking down on black marketeers to help promote a free market” and people greeting such announcements with jeers, ridicule, and re-call elections.

27. Comment by Sean Hastings on 25 November 2008:

    Sorry, I responded before I saw your second post saying that you were originally thinking about the enforcement rather than the simple passage of the law. But that is a common mental error that people make – thinking that something becomes different when it becomes “illegal” – that “criminals” are somehow a different class of thing than “people” and not considering that it is only a piece of paper that places them into that class.

28. Comment by Sean Hastings on 25 November 2008:

    I had some more thoughts about this while at the grocery store buying thanksgiving dinner fixin’s. Sorry to write so much, but the core of this is very interesting to me. It points right to a problem in the way people think that I would love to be able to fix.The use of force can clearly break a thing – change its nature – but before the force is appied, the existence of parties willing to use force and guys with fancy clothes signing documents clearly does not change a things nature.Think about the analogy I made to the idea of someone being a “slave.”There are two definitions of “slave:1. A person in bondage.2. A person who is legally someone else’s property.The first is what exists while force is being applied. The second is just a law that has been passed, and the willingness to apply force.If Congress passed a law tomorrow saying that “Sean Hastings is now the property of Jim Davidson”, I think that it would be quite fair to say that I would still be a “free man” until Jim (-: notorious slaver that he is managed to track me down and put shackles on me.Calling me a “slave” under definition 2 is based on the idea that the passage of a law can change my nature. I hold that this is entirely invalid thinking – that it is fair to say that an “uncaught slave” is the same as a “free man.” They have to catch me for me to actually be a “slave.”In the case of the terms “free market” and “black market” however, there is no definition analogous to definition 1, there is only definition 2. The term “black market” never refers to the market that has been suppressed. It refers only to the market that has been legislated as illegal but continues to exist.I therefore find that it is perfectly reasonable to say that the “black market” is in fact the “free market” and when the cops kick down the door does it become no market at all.Of course a functioning “unfree market” can and will exist when people choose to trade only within the realm of what is not prohibited, just as people in bondage can also choose never to attempt to remove their chains.I believe that it is fair to say that we are “free” both when we do things that are not prohibited, and when we do things that are prohibited but are not actually caught.

Post a Response