From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Thu Dec 17 1998 - 16:17:56 MST
Joe writes:
>I'm arguing for a free market economy with regulations [...]
Stop right there. You're arguing for a contradiction. By definition, a
regulated market is not a free market - unless you're referring to
*self-regulation*, which doesn't appear to be the case.
The objectives you cite for regulation of the economy, insofar as they are
legitimate, can all be met by the allocation mechanism of the market
itself: that, of course, is the basic claim of anarcho-capitalism.
Or if you're afraid of too much freedom, a minimalist will argue that tort
law or criminal law, administered by a greatly reduced "government", will
take care of fraud, theft and the like, with no need to intrude into the
workings of the market itself.
The bottom line is: freedom and coercion don't mix. A "little" regulation
turns a free market into a managed market, with all the attendant problems.
>You, however, deflected my question rather than answer it.
I wasn't the one you asked the question of, but I'll be glad to give you my
answer:
>To repeat; are you in favor of corporate welfare or not, and, in either
case, why?
In a word: no. I don't believe in any sort of "government"-provided
"welfare". Why? Because it's based on coercion of some to benefit others.
I don't think Mike was supporting corporate welfare either; he was merely
pointing out that a lot of what gets confusedly called "corporate welfare"
is nothing of the sort, merely a reduction in the amount extorted from a
company, analogously to personal tax deductions.
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:03 MST