James A. Donald wrote:
> Ray Fischer:
> > Look at England and the US before unions existed and
> > before anti-monopoly laws were created.
>
> Unions existed in England in thirteenth century, and the
> anti-monopoly laws have generally been aimed at
> forbidding competition, rather than preventing monopoly.
I just wanted to comment on Ray's post hoc argument. If people are
willing to put their faith in a post hoc argument, then the advocates
of greater state intervention do indeed have plenty of "evidence" on
their side, pretty much for free. After all, as technology has
progressed people have, unsurprisingly, been living better and better
lives. The discovery of the steam engine, the harnessing of
electricity, the advances in medicine, all have improved our lives
tremendously. Given a modestly free economy, it was virtually
inevitable that our lot would be improved many times over from the
start of the 20th to the end of the 20th century.
Those who refuse to acknowledge any cause of this vast improvement
other than greater government intervention can have a field day with
the evidence. Fact number 1: anti-monopoly laws came into existence.
Fact number 2: our lives have improved immensely. Therefore (here's the
post hoc) Fact 1 caused Fact 2. Thank Gov for the anti-monopoly laws!
In Gov we trust.
|