On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Marcel Popescu wrote:
You're still incredibly deluded. Even Hayek (bad as he is) would have supported someone's decision NOT to sell to someone else, your rethoric notwithstanding. BTW, do you have anything else besides "Tim is wrong"? (And I'm no fan of Tim.)
No, Hayek wouldn't have. Otherwise he wouldn't have been an apponent of regulated economies (in particular both socialist and fascist). Why was he against regulated economies? Because they don't offer the same opportunities to ALL the members of the market (buyer and seller alike). If Hayek were alive today and you asked him, "Do you support a business in a free market refusing to sell to Jews?" His answer would have been decidedly in the negative. Hayek supported 'free choice' for both buyer and seller. Applying a condition of sale to only a segment of the market, as opposed to the whole market (ie "No shirt, no shoes, no sale" versus "No shirt, no shoes, and your ugly, no sale") violates all three of the standards necessary for a free market. Hayek understood something you don't, a business is a public trust. It is not a pure expression of individual freedom. Why? Because it involves more than one party. One has the right to do as you want, UNTIL it effects another. Then they have a say. A business market with only one party is no market. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------