Jim Choate wrote: [govt subsidies to transcontinental railroads]

Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic to support the business.

So if the market could not support it, who paid for it and how, who benefited from the distortion and who paid the price? The market demands the most efficient distribution of capital resources, when the government screws with that and screws with the market, the resulting problems (arbitrary coercive power of Western railroads, and severe lack of quality and safety) are because of that distortion, not the market. The government should have *not* intervened. Which is not my point though, my point is the judgements of an uneducated populace and corrupted government to blame this as a natural effect of a free market should not be carried forward, it needs to be exposed and corrected. [oil mineral rights]

...

The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free market? No, government intervention.

Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the title *without* registering it at the country seat or its likes.

Which is not a market instrument, it is a government instrument. Government intervention does not necessarily have to be direct and purposeful. Matt