[FoRK] Riddle me this...

[Jeff Bone]

On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Kurt wrote:

> Jeff Bone wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Bill Humphries wrote:
>>> * The Market™ is a trademark of Triumphant Consuite Libertarians,  
>>> Inc. and should not be considered an endorsement by Triumphant  
>>> Consuite Libertarians, Inc.
>> Why is it that libertarians seem to be everybody's bitch these days?
>
> Let's be clear:
>
> It's "okay" for other consumers to have their liberal beliefs;   
> just if
> those beliefs involve invisible equilibriums in the sky / invisible
> arbitrage in the garage / whatever then they're sadly and dangerously
> imperfect in a very inefficient way, and we now feel compelled to full
> disclosure.

Hmm, nice maneuver.

Anybody who fails to modify their beliefs based on clear evidence is  
guilty of the same error, whether we're talking Muslims or  
libertarians.  But it's not at all reasonable to equate  
libertarianism with religion.  (Said the *lapsed* libertarian... ;-)

There's a difference, of course, between pronouncements about  
religion and pronouncements about economics / politics.  The former  
relies on faith:  belief in the absence of, or even despite,  
evidence.  Markets and economic policies of course have *real world  
consequences* and are *subject to measurement.*  Kind of like, say,  
the weather (nod to Owen, also a nice point;  the fact that the  
weather is difficult to predict doesn't mean it's not real;  the fact  
that free market economic equilibrium and implied arbitrage are in  
some sense observably "imperfect" doesn't mean it doesn't happen.   
Meteorology and economics, even more than most other sciences, are in  
the rough approximation business.)

Also, it's not at all been demonstrated that markets don't work, or  
that any other mechanism is in any general way "better" at allocating  
resources.  It's perhaps more accurate to say that markets don't  
address some real-world resource-management scenarios very well  
(commons, for example.)  A libertarian that can't admit that is an  
ideologue.  (I can admit that;  see previous messages, particularly  
re: anti-trust.)

None of that changes the fact that *any other option* by definition  
sacrifices freedom of choice (of contract, association, commerce,  
etc.) for some other set of values / preferences.  That's the simple  
fact;  the argument shouldn't be about whether free markets are  
theoretically perfect or not, or comprise a religion or not, etc.  It  
should be about how much coercion is required, if any, to accomplish  
other shared or partially-shared goals.

YMMV.

jb