Business 'rights' and free markets
The question has been raised why a business which applies some 'entry cost' to a particular group removes that business from a 'free market'. What does it take to create a 'free market'? Hayeks says 'perfect competition'. What is 'perfect competition'? "According to the generally accepted view, perfect competition presupposes: 1. A homogenous commodity offered and demanded by a large number of relatively small sellers and buyers, none of whom expects to exercise by his actiona perceptible influence on price. 2. Free entry into the market and absence of other restraints on the movement of prices and resources. 3. Complete knowledge of the relevant factors on the part of all participants in the market." Individualism and Economic Order F.A. Hayek ISBN 0-225-32093-6 Chapter V The Meaning of 'Competition' The reality is that Tim's believe that he can refuse to serve a customer because they hold or perhaps practice some action that (while not involving him or his property directly, only his apparently fragile emotional ego) he finds offensive is within the bounds of free market econoimics is just plain crap. Hayek's views on fascism and socialism are well known, and not positive. What Tim proposes is nothing more than fascism at the individual level. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 05, at 07:44PM, Jim Choate wrote: | What does it take to create a 'free market'? Hayeks says 'perfect | competition'. Here you go using a Good Name(tm) in vain...again. | What is 'perfect competition'? "Perfect Competition" is not an Austrian idea, in fact, it is an idea that has been refuted by many Austrians in the past as it is not characteristic of the real world. | 3. Complete knowledge of the relevant factors on the part of all | participants in the market." "Complete Knowledge" is precisely what Hayek was refuting when he proclaimed the idea of local knowledge, since no one can know at all times what happens all around him, much less the next person. | Individualism and Economic Order | F.A. Hayek | ISBN 0-225-32093-6 | | Chapter V | The Meaning of 'Competition' Did you actually read it? Or did you gather this information off of an Amazon book review blurb? | The reality is that Tim's believe that he can refuse to serve a customer | because they hold or perhaps practice some action that (while not | involving him or his property directly, only his apparently fragile | emotional ego) he finds offensive is within the bounds of free market | econoimics is just plain crap. Tim's refusal to service whoever he wishes is directly related to the free market. By the same token that Tim is free to not service anyone he wishes, so too is anyone who opposes this attitude free to not shop at Tim's shop. | Hayek's views on fascism and socialism are well known, and not positive. | What Tim proposes is nothing more than fascism at the individual level. Where do you get this stuff? Do you make it up as you go along? -- Churchill, Winston Leonard Spencer --On the eve of Britain's entry into World War II: "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, at 07:44PM, Jim Choate wrote: | What does it take to create a 'free market'? Hayeks says 'perfect | competition'.
Here you go using a Good Name(tm) in vain...again.
No, you just don't want to admit you have no clue what Hayek was talking about...
| What is 'perfect competition'?
"Perfect Competition" is not an Austrian idea,
Where it came from is irrelevant.
in fact, it is an idea that has been refuted by many Austrians in the past as it is not characteristic of the real world.
Hayek refutes it in Chapter 5 himself. Of course it doesn't apply to the real world because you CAN'T create any of the three minimum conditions necessary of a free market. It's why Hayek also introduces the concept of 'imperfect competition'. You didn't read (understand) Hayek, come on, admit it...
| 3. Complete knowledge of the relevant factors on the part of all | participants in the market."
"Complete Knowledge" is precisely what Hayek was refuting when he proclaimed the idea of local knowledge, since no one can know at all times what happens all around him, much less the next person.
But Hayek draws a distinction, which damns your argument because you ignore it, between 'competition' and 'information'.
| The reality is that Tim's believe that he can refuse to serve a customer | because they hold or perhaps practice some action that (while not | involving him or his property directly, only his apparently fragile | emotional ego) he finds offensive is within the bounds of free market | econoimics is just plain crap.
Tim's refusal to service whoever he wishes is directly related to the free market.
No, it is related to Tim applying his bigotry. In a free market a seller has a limited number of factors they may consider. Cost to manufacture, cost at sale, difference in those prices and whether the market level is enough to stay in business. It's also worth noting that in regard to 'free market' the 'perfect information' is related to the product and the price in the market, not the seller or buyers personal beliefs or actions outside of the economic exchange. Please provide a quote from Hayek to support your claim of his meaning. Quid pro quo. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, November 6, 2001, at 03:36 AM, Gabriel Rocha wrote:
Tim's refusal to service whoever he wishes is directly related to the free market. By the same token that Tim is free to not service anyone he wishes, so too is anyone who opposes this attitude free to not shop at Tim's shop.
| Hayek's views on fascism and socialism are well known, and not positive. | What Tim proposes is nothing more than fascism at the individual level.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you make it up as you go along?
In Choate-Prime (aka Choate'), the parallel reality that Choate lives in, Hayek' practices this form of Austrian' economics. In our own reality, where history, physics, math, and economics are all as we know them to be, Choate is lost. In Choate' I hear he is quite well-respected, even on the Cypherpunks' list. When he travels to our reality, though, it is not worth our time trying to understand his communications about his reality. Bluntly, when Choate makes strange claims about math, history, physics, and economics, it's never worth the time to try to correct his many wrong-headed (in our reality) ideas and definitions. --Tim May "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler
Tim wrote:
Bluntly, when Choate makes strange claims about math, history, physics, and economics, it's never worth the time to try to correct his many wrong-headed (in our reality) ideas and definitions.
And the real pisser is that he's also useless as a reliable, 180-degrees-out-of-phase, reverse indicator. Apparently, Choate' (aka, Inchoate reality) shares just enough commonality with the real world that he occasionally (albeit, rarely) gets something right. (See my previous comment about blind squirrels and acorns.) S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why can't it be changed by Constitutional amendment since it's the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Tue, Nov 06, at 09:19AM, Tim May wrote: | Bluntly, when Choate makes strange claims about math, history, physics, | and economics, it's never worth the time to try to correct his many | wrong-headed (in our reality) ideas and definitions. Thank you for helping me see the light. I have pondered adding Choate to a killfile recently, but it is not worth the trouble, just move on to next message when I see something from him...But it sure is fun sometimes to point out how ignorant he is or acts or tries to come off as being. Besides, I am bored alot. :) --Gabe -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared."
From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com>
What does it take to create a 'free market'? Hayeks says 'perfect competition'.
And in this, he gave way to David Friedman and the like. Hayek is the least Austrian of the Austrians. Look to Mises - or better yet, to Rothbard - to find a much better Austrian.
The reality is that Tim's believe that he can refuse to serve a customer because they hold or perhaps practice some action that (while not involving him or his property directly, only his apparently fragile emotional ego) he finds offensive is within the bounds of free market econoimics is just plain crap.
Hayek's views on fascism and socialism are well known, and not positive. What Tim proposes is nothing more than fascism at the individual level.
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.) Mark
On Tue, Nov 06, at 05:42PM, Marcel Popescu wrote: | And in this, he gave way to David Friedman and the like. Hayek is the least | Austrian of the Austrians. Look to Mises - or better yet, to Rothbard - to | find a much better Austrian. By and by, "better" is a relative term... | 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. You didn't need to go past your first sentence here. | BTW, do you have anything else besides "Tim is wrong"? (And | I'm no fan of Tim.) He has nothing else, see above. --Gabe -- "It's not brave, if you're not scared."
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Inchoate wrote:
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.
Let me get this right. Jimbo is CHANNELING Hayek? Yeah, right. S a n d y "I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man." --True Grit (1969)
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Let me get this right. Jimbo is CHANNELING Hayek? Yeah, right.
Not at all, http://www.mises.org/hayekbio.asp you should read the books instead of just trusting other peoples interpretation...he was decidedly against central or control economices (ie fascism or socialism). -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, you pompous ass, You wrote:
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Let me get this right. Jimbo is CHANNELING Hayek? Yeah, right.
Not at all,
http://www.mises.org/hayekbio.asp
you should read the books instead of just trusting other peoples interpretation... he was decidedly against central or control economices (ie fascism or socialism).
Of course I've read the books and of course I know he was against centrally planned economies. So what? Read your own stupid post again, moron. Your pretending to know what Hayek would say in your stupid hypothetical about denying service to Jews or whomever, is the height of hubris, you pitiful ignoramus. Have a nice day, S a n d y
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim, you pompous ass,
There's the pot calling the kettle black...
Of course I've read the books and of course I know he was against centrally planned economies. So what?
He was against more than 'planned economies'. Apparently you didn't read the books as well as you believe, or else you only remember what serves yoru personal goals. Either way, it's a skewed perspective.
Read your own stupid post again, moron. Your pretending to know what Hayek would say in your stupid hypothetical about denying service to Jews or whomever, is the height of hubris, you pitiful ignoramus.
Sticks and stones. It's interesting that in lambasting me for 'knowing what Hayek would say' is EXACTLY what you're doing. At least I back my hubris with quotes from Hayeks works. -- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Butthead, You wrote:
It's interesting that in lambasting me for 'knowing what Hayek would say' is EXACTLY what you're doing. At least I back my hubris with quotes from Hayeks works.
Watch your attribution bonehead. I've not participated in the Hayek discussion at all except to point out your stupid attempt to PREDICT what Hayek WOULD HAVE SAID. Show us your Hyek "denying service to whomever" quotes. Can't, can you? Surrender, Dorothy. S a n d y _____________________________________________________________ If the law of gravity is fundamental, why can't it be changed by Constitutional amendment since it's the primary authority? W W \*\ /*/ The Road Kill Group |*| |*| /*////|\\\\*\ |\- (|||||||||||||\((x)\ -======-------------||---:> (|||||||||||||/((x)/ \*\\\\|////*/ |/- |*| |*| /*/ \*\ M M
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Reese wrote:
At 04:42 PM 11/7/01 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jim, you pompous ass,
Why not just call him a dumb cunt?
Because thats *your name*, you dumb cunt.
Socially,
Reese
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
-- On 7 Nov 2001, at 17:21, Jim Choate wrote:
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,
You are both deranged and untruthfull. You make statements without caring or knowing whether they are true or false. His answer would, of course, have been that without freedom of asscociation, we will eventually wind up as serfs. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG tTENFDL8xKddAqMPfoxf52sFTiI456i81yN0QF2P 4f3Jr3toXUmULlgIBfzwDPtxn70dkFD2X5lwS1o9h
participants (9)
-
Gabriel Rocha -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Marcel Popescu -
measl＠mfn.org -
Reese -
Sandy Sandfort -
Tim May