Business 'rights' and free markets

[Jim Choate]

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 at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------