From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 16:42:03 MST
Robin responds to my questions:
>>Did Coase in fact simply assume these things in his paper? What did he
win
>>the Nobel prize for, then?
>Asking the right question, even if the answer is trivial.
Speaking of trivial answers... (Ok, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. No
offense.)
I'm going to suspend judgment until I read the original paper. Something
I've been meaning to get to anyway.
>Having the ends justify the means is "principled." Maybe its not a
principle
>you like, but that's another matter.
If you think it's principled, then proceed to defend the principle.
I wrote:
>Analyses like Coase's serve to buttress this belief by showing how
>solutions arise on a free market, but don't - and shouldn't - form the
>foundation of (anti)political philosophy.
Robin returns:
>But Coase gives a *consequential* analysis in favor of markets!
True, exactly why I said he buttresses our opposition to aggression. But in
itself it provides no reason for an authoritarian to suddenly embrace
freedom. He'd say "so what? I don't want what the market wants, there are
higher values", blah blah blah.
>If my liberty was reduced, that should show itself in lots of simple
>familiar consequences. I wouldn't get to eat the things I like,
>live in the places I like, etc. I could be displeased by that outcome
>even without adding on an extra "and my liberty was reduced."
Who said it was offered *in addition* to the simple consequences? It's just
a summary, in lieu of enumerating all the detailed losses.
>>>I embrace simple consequential analysis as a basis for policy
>>>discussions.
>>So did Machiavelli.
>To his credit.
If you say so... Tell me, does _The Prince_ really inspire your sense of
justice?
>>>I accept these features because simple consequential analysis seems
>>>our best chance for creating broad intellectual consensus on policy
>>>questions.
>>If by an appeal to their material advantage we can persuade the less
>>principled to support freedom, that's better than nothing, I suppose.
>There are lots more simple consequences than "material advantage."
>There's having friends, enjoying conversations, liking music,
>traveling to interesting places, etc.
What do these things have to do with market analysis or with Coase's
theorem?
>>IOW you prefer the _status quo_ of opportunistic power struggles to a
>>principled discussion of the ethical foundations of a good society.
>Again, power struggles *are* "principled." And there is no real
>alternative to participating in them -- "ethical" discussions are just
>one of many ways to play the power struggle game.
You're equivocating on the word "power" - a common practice among people
who - to their credit - don't want to admit to themselves the brute nature
of what they advocate. Obviously I was addressing the power of compulsion,
not "personal power" or "economic power". What sort of "principle" can
justify social order by armed force? "Might makes right"?
Dick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:05 MST