My response to some guy who disagreed with the notion, "Market good, govt bad:"
Do you really need a definition of property rights? Well, okay. The right to own and control property is essential and central to the following end: maximum prosperity for all involved. Witness the unprecedented prosperity enjoyed by Americans. I have to be able to acquire, own and dispose of property, completely freely, in order to be able to make decisions and predicts outcomes. If I chose a green shirt today but you have the right to either rip it from my body or force me to wear something else, why would I ever have provided the "public service" I engaged in that won me my shirt? What's mine must absolutely remain mine. And I can do or not do whatever I want with it. I can burn my shirt. I can wear it as a hat. I can give it away or sell it. It's called freedom, man. And, again, you can know it's good by its observable fruits: American prosperity.
Coercion IS an ultimate evil. What? You should be able to force me to do whatever you want me to do or ANYTHING you want me to do? Turn that around. I should be able to force YOU to do or not do anything?
You said, "in the system he advocates, business and industry, once stripped of the restrictions placed on them by government, would have even more coercive power." Business and industry have NO coercive power. A businessman or industrialist can't force you to buy his products or services. You choose to buy or not buy. Only the govt uses coercion. There is such a thing as business collusion with govt to inhibit newer, smaller firms to enter a market. etc., but that perniciousness occurs outside anything recommended in the book.
Hey! Here's an idea. Let's hear your brilliant alternatives to the book's ideas. Anyone can carp about someone else's ideas. Let's hear your specific counterpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment