In article
<8968693d-8fc1-4ed5-b905-d77325c6790c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bret
Cahill <BretCahill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> The issue isn't if free markets could prevent speech but if censor****p
> could prevent free markets.
[...]
> It's a self evident truth.
>
> But ask any of the outspoken "market" economists at Hoover, Heritage,
> Am. Enterprise, the Chicago School, von Mises, and they'll dodge like
> there's no tomorrow.
It is a nearly vacuous question. But we have to consider the source.
Does precede mean precede in time?
Does it mean take precedence over, as in priority?
Does it mean precede logically, as in "If A then B?"
[note our use of time order in ordinary discourse to mean logical
implication. The word "then" has a time connotation as well as
a logical connotation. The word "follows" does as well.]
If it is precedence in time, does this also assume it is part of the
transaction?
What do you mean by free?
[Just about nothing. Unlike the word _is_, which does of course have
meaning]
If you will note how many posts were required in this topic before we even
began to get a hint of what your question _means_ you will understand
how vacuous it really is.
An economist attempts to separate so-called "normative" issues from
economics itself. Freedom of speech is such an issue, and, in general,
should not concern an economist when _studying economic activity_.
But his definition of a free market must of course allow a sufficiently
free discourse to allow undeterred the transfer of goods between a
willing buyer and a willing seller.
"Undeterred" is the key word here. The same systems which attempt to
guarantee freedom of speech will be guaranteed as well to interfere
both with free speech and free trade. We will deter patrons from
yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater; and we will deter consumers from
purchasing human beings for the purposes of slavery.
I suspect that despite your appeal to emotional responses through the
use of loaded terms such as _censor****p_, you do in fact believe that
there are some things which must not be spoken. You probably do, in
fact, sup****t hate speech legislation. You no doubt believe in an
entire doctrine which some call "political correctness", which is a
full-blown censor****p of speech and ideas.
So don't go about claiming that censor****p is a right versus left issue.
And there is no such thing as "freedom". It is just a phrase signifying
a philosophy that leans towards noninterference and away from
authoritarianism.
Your vacuous question raises, of course, the normative issues which
are part and parcel of your entire thrust, and in doing so departs from
economics and enters the purely political realm.
And of course that is what you want.
Now what is the issue you think we and the economists are dodging?
And does it really have anything to do with economics?
--
George Cornelius cornelius ( AT ) eisner.decus.org
|
