{"id":3604,"date":"2005-02-11T15:13:30","date_gmt":"2005-02-11T19:13:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/02\/11\/flea-markets\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:59","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:59","slug":"flea-markets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/02\/11\/flea-markets\/","title":{"rendered":"flea markets"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Tim Sandefur of Freespace<\/FONT><\/A> is “absolutely, completely, totally ” certain that the following sentence <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
is wrong:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Markets are not the product of Mother Nature. They are embedded in institutions <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
and are at root political creations.”<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
The line comes from the thoughtful piece “<\/FONT>Social Security and Antitrust<\/FONT><\/A>,” written by (my friend and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
former boss) Bert Foer, president of the <\/FONT>American Antitrust Institute<\/FONT><\/A>.  Bert states that free markets <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
can only continue to exist if government helps construct a social safetynet, which keeps the public <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
from rebelling against the insecurities that are inherent in a pure capitalist system — social protection <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
helps avoid economic protectionism.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
\"fr  I’d try to summarize Tim’s logic, and his tale of inflation in China, but there really is no <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
logic — there’s only the ideologue’s certainty <\/FONT>that he alone has the truth and that everything in the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
universe (including every historic vignette <\/FONT>and non sequitur<\/EM>) somehow <\/FONT>proves he’s absolutely correct.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Tim’s right that supply and demand existed before governments.  But, free, competitive capitalist <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
markets — the kind Bert is talking about, and Tim so avidly seeks —  did not.   Human beings have not <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
always had free entry into the marketplace to buy and sell goods (and, of course, many still do not).  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Before governments helped delineate and enforce necessary rights and rules of fairplay, the person <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
or clan or tribe with the most power<\/EM> dictated how trade would be carried out, where, and by whom.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Tim might insist “but people always had the urge<\/EM> to trade and the right <\/EM>to do so, from Nature,” but <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“having” a right and exercising it freely are quite different things — as is having an urge and having a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
functioning marketplace.  Bert Foer is correct that a free market doesn’t just happen and isn’t inevitable <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
or perpetual.  It takes governments to keep them working.  Admitting that government — and some limits <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on unrestrained capitalism — are needed to have a working free market is a blasphemy against Tim’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
libertarian religion.  So, he’ll keep creating strawmen for his god to slay, and keep rejecting reasonable <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
dialogue with people he is absolutely certain are just plain wrong.  How sad and unproductive.  Tim’s <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
lucky to live in a land where the government will protect his right to spew such nonsense.  Or, maybe he is <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
large, powerful and rich enough not to need the government’s help.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
Update<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/EM> (7 PM):  Want a headache?  Read Timothy Sandefur’s reply<\/A> to this post.   \"ekg\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Despite Tim’s misdirection, Bert Foer is not<\/EM> saying that all<\/EM> economic rules and all <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
market forces are <\/FONT>the product of government institutions.  Foer <\/FONT>instead points out <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that free markets <\/FONT>don’t spring up naturally on their own, but <\/FONT>need help from governments <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to thrive <\/FONT>(especially, <\/FONT>if they are to be tolerated in a society <\/FONT>where the popular vote exists).<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Sandefur thinks he can rebut Foer and reality by asking a non-responsive question <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(“what about inflation in China <\/FONT>in the 1940’s?”), and then chastise us for not<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
following him through his<\/EM> Looking Glass.   (By the way, China’s inability to control<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
inflation in the 1940’s does not<\/EM> prove that free markets arise naturally.  And, our limits<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
on free speech — i.e., <\/EM>like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater — do not mean<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
that free speech does not exist; it does<\/EM> mean that the body politic can endorse a<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
broad freedom from censorship without doing unnecessary harm to itself.)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“ekg F”  Sorry, Tim, defining every right in absolutes is adolescent.  Whining, and fantasizing <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
about other worlds in which macho supermen <\/FONT>need no help from anyone, won’t convert the <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
unpersuaded.  T<\/FONT>axes pay for the infra-<\/FONT>structure that makes it possible for the marketplace <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and you<\/EM> to work and have a comfortable life.    You may hate g<\/FONT>overnment, but it can and<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
does help to secure a marketplace <\/FONT>that is as free as possible, in a society that values all its <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
members, <\/FONT>and stability, and its <\/FONT>future. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n