> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 17:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: WIEST JAMES ANDREW <wiest921@cs.uidaho.edu>
> To: Steve Cooke <SCOOKE@marvin.ag.uidaho.edu>
> Cc: vision2020@uidaho.edu
> Subject: Re: How the A's coerce the B's
> Sorry for the late reply, I've been offline for a while...
>
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, Steve Cooke wrote:
>
> > On Friday the question was asked "How are the B's coerced by the A's?"
> >
> > Let's assume that A holds the property right to a bushel of wheat
> > and society recognizes that right. As a result, B cannot also have
> > the right to that bushel of wheat. (Let's also assume that A & B
> > are not married and living in a common property state like ID). If A
> > wants to use that bu. of wheat, A can have access to it without
> > asking anyone or paying anyone anything - no questions asked. A is
> > free in this regard and life for A is sweet. However, if B also wants
> > to use that bu. of wheat, A can deny the use of it to B and the
> > society will pay for the police to enforce A's decision (B is coerced
> > to do without by A w/ the support of society). Alternatively, A can
> > extract a payment in cash or in kind from B (B is coerced to pay by
> > A) for use of that bu. of wheat and society will supply the court
> > system to enforce the contract. Thus, in relation to the property
> > rights on this bu. of wheat, A is free and B is coerced by that
> > freedom. And so it is with every other set of property rights in
> > society that makes up a person's opportunity set.
> >
> > A prerequisite to market exchange is the distribution of property
> > rights. The neoclassical economic theory of the market economy
> > assumes a "given distribution of property rights." This discussion of
> > property rights is fundamental to how a market economy works in my
> > view.
> >
> First, you assume that there are only two people, when in reality there
> are many people.
> Second, you assumed B had no rights to anything of his own. This is
> rarely the case. Being able to work is a market good.
> Third, you assumed B is being forced to buy the good. This is necessary
> for coercion.
> Fourth, you assumed B could only buy from A which is not normal in a free
> market.
>
> The reason we use money and do not barter is that the system is more
> efficient. A is not an island. No one has everything. If you are
> arguing against inequity of goods than you are advocating socialism which
> has been proven to stifle the human spirit and has failed miserably
> thoughout the world.
>
> You are correct is stating that private property rights are fundamental
> to a free market. If you could not reap benefits from what you invested
> your time and effort in, you would not have any incentive to work. There
> would be no creativity. If
> you are saying that this is good, I'm sure there are still a few countries
> whose economies have not collapsed who would welcome you with open arms.
>
> A free market is equity of opportunity, not equity of outcome. Where
> else in the world could someone become a millionaire from an idea? How
> many rags to riches stories does it take to convince you that the only
> thing holding most people back is themselves? Too many people want to be
> B's and get a free ride because they are being "coerced" into having to
> work for a living. Well, the welfare state looks to be ending, and I for
> one, am glad. No one is forcing B to buy A's wheat, therefore he is not
> coerced. B could always get a job where he could "coerce" someone into
> paying him and then be "coerced" into buying C's wheat because it's cheaper.
> All in all, this method has produced a higher standard of living than any
> society which has attempted a "coercionless" society... like the Soviet
> Union?(insert irony here ;) )
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>