SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (24346)8/21/2012 6:54:39 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
So arguing for free markets makes no sense unless they can solve all problems?

What a silly notion.

Slavery (at least in the US, and to be stable on a large scale anywhere) required an imposition of government force. Segregation was weakened by the market interest of people in this country, but the extent that markets helped the situation was limited by government force (most clearly with Jim Crow laws, but also with prevailing wage laws, and even minimum wage laws, also with license requirements)

If I was to assert something like "there is no need for governments under any circumstances, markets can always and everywhere take care of every problem", then "How would markets have ended slavery and segregation?" would be a legitimate counter argument, and one of many. I could pile on quite a few additional ones myself if I felt like joining you in knocking down that straw man.

But of course no one here is saying any such thing.



To: koan who wrote (24346)8/21/2012 6:59:41 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 85487
 
Which Institution is More Enlightened?

by Don Boudreaux on May 24, 2010
in Civil Society, Competition, History, Law, Myths and Fallacies

Here’s a letter that I sent on Saturday to the New York Times:
Reacting to Rand Paul’s remarks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you say that his libertarian philosophy “is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society…. It was only government power that … abolished Jim Crow” (“ Limits of Libertarianism,” May 22).

You’ve got it backwards. Jim Crow itself was government power. Jim Crow was legislation that forced the segregation of blacks from whites. Research shows that people acting in the free market that you apparently believe is prone to racial discrimination were remarkably reluctant to discriminate along racial lines. It was this very reluctance – this capacity of free markets to make people colorblind – that obliged racists in the late 19th century to use government to achieve their loathsome goals.*

Had Mr. Paul’s libertarian philosophy been followed more consistently throughout American history, there would have been no need for one government statute (the Civil Rights Act) to upend earlier government statutes (Jim Crow) and the business practices that they facilitated.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

* See especially Robert Higgs, Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865-1914 (University of Chicago Press, 1976); Jennifer Roback, “Southern Labor Law in the Jim Crow Era: Exploitative or Competitive?” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 51 (1984); and Jennifer Roback, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46 (1986).

cafehayek.com