I am against regulation, but business conglomerates cannot prosper without government subsidies and corporate welfare. I cannot honestly think of one instance that economies of scale led to a rise of a natural monopoly. Economies of scale do not prevent competitors from entering the market; government regulations do. Yes, I realize this is getting off-topic, so I will stop my economic rant here. :/
Well, I realize that was a horrible analogy. I apologize. Turgot has never instituted a complete deregulation of grain trade. A complete deregulation would only be feasible in an anarcho-capitalist, or possibly a minarchist, society. If the situation is as you described, competition never existed at all. The market seems very oligopolic to me - especially considering that grain markets tend to be on the pure competition, price elastic side - therefore it is my belief that the problem should be analyzed from different angles, rather than holding economic liberalization culpable of everything that went wrong. Based on the little knowledge I have on the situation, it seems like the problem lies with the fact that Turgot tried to increase the market power of sellers with little consideration of the factor market - which was nowhere near being free - intertwined with the fact that France had a poor harvest that year.
While the rhetorical question is empirically impossible on many grounds, I would agree with Robespierre. Sure, there are many libertarians who disagree with the Lockean proviso - mostly Rothbardians whose views predominate in the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I do not agree with coerced redistribution of property, but acquisition of private property should not be at the expense of another. I think Robespierre and I could agree on that, at least with the latter part. If he is, however, advocating a coerced redistribution of property, I'm afraid that I would have to disagree. Again, this is a situation that is quite unfeasible in real life.
Is it really incompatible with a principle as innate as self-ownership? Now I'm curious as to what the republican definition of "natural rights" is...
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-24 07:36 pm (UTC)Yes, I realize this is getting off-topic, so I will stop my economic rant here. :/
Well, I realize that was a horrible analogy. I apologize.
Turgot has never instituted a complete deregulation of grain trade. A complete deregulation would only be feasible in an anarcho-capitalist, or possibly a minarchist, society. If the situation is as you described, competition never existed at all. The market seems very oligopolic to me - especially considering that grain markets tend to be on the pure competition, price elastic side - therefore it is my belief that the problem should be analyzed from different angles, rather than holding economic liberalization culpable of everything that went wrong. Based on the little knowledge I have on the situation, it seems like the problem lies with the fact that Turgot tried to increase the market power of sellers with little consideration of the factor market - which was nowhere near being free - intertwined with the fact that France had a poor harvest that year.
While the rhetorical question is empirically impossible on many grounds, I would agree with Robespierre. Sure, there are many libertarians who disagree with the Lockean proviso - mostly Rothbardians whose views predominate in the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I do not agree with coerced redistribution of property, but acquisition of private property should not be at the expense of another. I think Robespierre and I could agree on that, at least with the latter part.
If he is, however, advocating a coerced redistribution of property, I'm afraid that I would have to disagree. Again, this is a situation that is quite unfeasible in real life.
Is it really incompatible with a principle as innate as self-ownership? Now I'm curious as to what the republican definition of "natural rights" is...