"Precious Pup" <[email protected]
> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > No need to. I agree with Friedman 100%.
> No you don't; not even close. You are willfully ignorant of the
foundational aspect of what the
> "free" in free trade and free enterprise means. Friedman isn't ignorant
of the meaning -- free to
> him means uncoerced. Free trade clearly to him means individual liberty
in pursuing transactions
> and he says so in black and white and writes entire books on the matter.
Shooting someone in the
> head with a bullet to eliminate the competition is not "free enterprise"
because it takes away the
> freedom to live of the other individual. A slave does not have individual
liberty in pursuing
> The same goes for Adam Smith when he laid the foundations for free
trade/enterprise in The Wealth of
> Nations. That text is to a large degree a manifesto on standing up for
the little guy and making
> sure the little guy has individual liberty -- but I'm pretty sure you and
your "colleagues" have
> never cracked that book open or else you wouldn't be claiming what you
claim. Anarchy and
> gangsterism was never part of the definition of free trade to Smith, and
it isn't to Freidman, Sen,
> and anyone else who has the slightest clue. Maybe you'd like to take up
an argument with Friedman
> on whether or not free enterprise leads to slavery. My money is on
Friedman. You'd get sliced and
> diced into little bitty pieces.
> Like John Hicks said:
> The liberal, or non-interference, principles of the classical (Smithian or Ricardian)
> economists were not, in the first place, economic principles; they were an application to
> economics of principles that were thought to apply to a much wider field. The contention that
> economic freedom made for economic efficiency was no more than a secondary support.. .. What I
> do question is whether we are justified in forgetting, as completely as most of us have done,
> the other side of the argument.
> Now you have probably not "forgotten the other side of the argument" (the
foundational aspect of
> individual freedom/liberty in free trade/enterprise); you likely never
> > The quote that started the whole Econ debate said something to the effect of - some things are
> > good in moderation (Like Free Enterprise) until taken to the extremes (Like
> > trade). This is a perfect example of a need for the government to come
> > and establish the "rules of the game".
> Before you comment you should first learn what the words mean. Saying
"free enterprise leads to
> slavery" is pure crockery. Only someone who doesn't know what the words
mean could say such a
> thing. All you have to do is open the books and learn. The sky doesn't
turn black just because you
> close your eyes. The need for remedial studies is yours. It is all there
in black and white, you
> need not rely on usenet postings.
The basic elements of an economic transaction involve a) A Seller/Producer,
b) A Buyer/Consumer, and c) Goods or Services being transacted.
You are absolutely correct in stating that slavery is not free enterprise. There is no freedom to
transact between the slave/producer and the slave owner/consumer
The "Slave Trade" is another matter. In this case, the slave is the good/service. Everything that
Friedman wrote about free enterprise can be applied to the relationship between the slave trader /
slave owner. Nowhere did he mention the state of the goods/services (slave.)
In case I failed to mention it, let me say for the record: Slavery is bad. Nothing good came out of
the slave trade. In no way do I support or condone the trafficking of humans. I do not, nor have I
ever claimed free enterprise leads to slavery.
The government has a role in free enterprise and that is to prevent things like the slave trade
taking place. As a country, the US government failed at that task for almost 100 years.
Perhaps the original quote would have been more palatable if the author had said: Some things are
good in moderation, like free enterprise. The ability for sellers and buyers to freely transact any
good or service without the influence of outside agents is fine until it is taken to an extreme,
like the sale of illegal drugs. In this case it is necessary for the government to step in a
regulate/prevent, while still preserving the basic foundations of a free enterprise system.
I apologize for my harshness in earlier posts. My original post was meant as a helpful answer to
your question. I think that we may be arguing two different points. If you want me to stop
responding to your posts, just say so - no hard feelings.