X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Economics doesn't recognise rights, that's politics. Don't confuse the > two. Just like Tom Vogt believes that being a Nazi prevents one from being a socialist, you fail to understand that politics is a subset of economics, the one where interactions are not voluntary. Free market economics assumes property rights. > As a matter of fact how can the business harm the right of the consumer > if the consumer can get up and walk away? That was MY point. > I've NEVER seen a economics text that mentioned civil rights with respect > to economic exchange. Most especialy with respect to defining a free > market. If you've got a reference I'll take a look at it. I don't know what "civil rights" mean for Americans. All free-market economics talks about rightfully owned property and voluntary exchange. You can't have free markets without property rights. Not violating property rights is the only demand for a free market. > After all, we've posited there are no 3rd parties so who is going to > define those rights let alone protect them? Er... well, you should hire a teacher. I know how to define AND protect them *myself*. Lucky me. > No, this is a confusing and mis-guided view of free markets. Ahem. > > > It further > > > means that one business can not, and still say in a free market with fair > > > competition, act in a manner that injects intentional and additional > > > difficulties in their ability to market their product. > > > > Wow... you know of many companies which inject difficulties in THEIR ability > > to market their product? Wow... look, ma, Microsoft is doing the best they > > can NOT to sell Windows 2000! > > We're talking about two businesses here in a free market, focus that > attention - turn the TV off. The first business can't inject difficulties > in the marketing of the second company. I was pointing that you said "THEIR ability" (meaning *their own*). > Bottem line, free market means non-interference between business with > market differentiation by price and quality as percieved by the consumer > as the only factor of success. > > Is that clearer? It was from the start. It's still wrong (in my use of the term, of course). However, feel free to use your own definitions. [Oh, I forgot... you need someone else to define terms for you.] Mark
