From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:44:07 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: Another question about free-markets...
Message-ID: <33CCFE438B9DD01192E800A024C84A193A7A22@mossbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate wrote:
[govt subsidies to transcontinental railroads]
> Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not 
> do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic 
> to support the business.

So if the market could not support it, who paid for it and how, who
benefited from the distortion and who paid the price? The market demands
the most efficient distribution of capital resources, when the
government screws with that and screws with the market, the resulting
problems (arbitrary coercive power of Western railroads, and severe lack
of quality and safety) are because of that distortion, not the market.

The government should have *not* intervened.

Which is not my point though, my point is the judgements of an
uneducated populace and corrupted government to blame this as a natural
effect of a free market should not be carried forward, it needs to be
exposed and corrected.

[oil mineral rights]
>> The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, 
>> restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free 
>> market? No, government intervention.
> 
> Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the 
> title *without* registering it at the country seat or its
> likes.

Which is not a market instrument, it is a government instrument.
Government intervention does not necessarily have to be direct and
purposeful.

	Matt