AL, thanks for the response. I obviously have some more research to do on these specefic topics. Not knowing that much about the government and policies in that era I can not argue either way on it, I have added it to my list of research topics though.

"There WERE small periods of de facto free markets. They always brought great instability and financial panics. That's why BUSINESS interests quickly became the main ones demanding govt regulation. Corporations rarely the ones act for the greater good, or even more rationally than most individuals. "

I never said that corporations will willingly act for the greatest interest of the people. I said that they will be forced to out of competitive forces and self regulation. Game theory shows that when self interested organisms compete for finite resources in a non-zero sum game that the best strategy for all involved is recipricol co-operation, or Tit for tat. (Actually, tit for tat with a random co-operative act outperforms regular old tit for tat) Even if entities are entered that 'defect' each time they will always be erradicated by a recipricol tit for tat entity. This suggest that if corporations were left alone (along with the workers and the markets) they would self regulate and end up benefiting everyone to the greatest extent. I am not advocating a system of NO LAWS. Laws would still have to be in place guranteeing your individual civil liberties. Corporations would have to show the worker what the job entailed and compensate for that, if they do not, and the worker is injured, the worker sues and the corporation is held liable. Unions can form of thier own accord, there will be no laws against workes uniting to protect themselves, there will be no regulating laws at all. Free market means just that, the buyers, the producers, and the workers are free to do what they want (or agree to amongst themselves) The ultimate goal of course (as I have been trying to point out) is that the end result would be a better system for everyone involved (Happier, healthier, safer, wealthier workers and buyers) It that is not the case, then I will abandon this notion of this system for the one that is. The point is, What is that system? I have presented what I feel it is and why I feel it is justified scientifically (game theory) If it is not the best system, keep adding government regs until it is, but what regs? And how many? Do you feel that our current system is the best, with people abandoning individual responsibility, corporations being held liable for consumers ignorance?

"I've said this before: I think you have an extremely naive faith in big business and so called "free markets", an almost religious one in nature. "

I don't actually, I dont know enough to be sure either way. I present my case this way so I can learn as much about the counterpoints as I can, I add them to my list of research topics, and learn more about them. Then adjust my ideas or abandon them or get reinforced in them accordingly.

"Much of what you believe is close to anarchism ( your closer to anarcho-capitalism than anarcho-sydicalism or spiritual anrachism) and not libertarianism. "

That statement I would have to disagree with. Maybe the way I presented my case comes across like that. First I am arguing on the principle of free markets. I never said anything about having no government role in the private life of the citizen, I fully believe that the government should, at the very minimum, provide protection for individual civil liberties and national defense. That is NOT anarchistic, and I have made that point multiple times. The government's role in the personal life and the business life are seperate issues. As I have said before, I fully support the personal freedom aspects of libertarianism, but I am unsure of the extent necassary for economic freedom (i.e. total free market, almost free market, heavily regulated market, etc. etc.) I have been, and I still am, under the impression that a very minimally regulated market, or
free market entirely is the best for all involved. That may not be the case. I have not seen any arguments that force me to outright abondon the idea, but I have seen many (including yours) that force me to do more research.

"For that matter, anarchists define their beliefs as "libertarian socialism" or "socialism withOUT the state". "

Excactly, I never once stated that I am an acarchist, I think the government definately has a role. But what that role is, that is the point of contention.

Matus

"I tried to isolate instances of exploitation where free market practices were key to bringing them about. Of course, if I have to limit myself to just free markets, I am sunk. I don't know how to do these models, but I see no reason to. As an economist friend of mine pointed out, modeling doesn't work. Let me repeat: modeling doesn't work. Its predictions don't work, nor do they jive with history."

Models can and sometimes do work, although they are not abolute indicators. Many of our great innovations in science came directly from predictions made from models that were later expirementally confirmed. Dealing with real people and all the forces involved in economics is obvioulsy a different story. Models may not PROVE something, but they will give you an idea of how things behave or will occur. The innacuracy of mathematical models or computer simulations is directly proportionaly to the number of unknown variables. The fewer the unknown, the more accurate the model and the prediction. The number of variables in a market place are probably nearly infinite. But that doesnt mean we should throw our hands in the air and abondon the attempt. Many of the examples you give had forces working in them that were directly ANTI free market, like corporations pushing to make unions illegal. A free market will allow people to join together and decide if they want to collectively strike. That is the right of the people. A Free market means it is free in every direction, for the corporation and for the worker. IT means there is NO government interference.

"Now, I see, unions are functionally like regulations and are thus incompatible with the free market. Interesting... "

A union is not a government imposed regulation. You confuse the idea of 'corporations being allowed to do anything they want' with 'free market' A corporation can not do anything they want, they can only do what the consumer allows them to do, and the producer will do for them. If either consumers or workers want to band together to stop a corporation from doing something they dont want them to do, they can go ahead and do that, and stop worker exploitation. Every regulation that the government has imposed on corporations, I content, and most libertarians will as well, will come out anyway as the result of the self regulation of a free market economy. I obvioulsy have not emphasized this point enough if you make the counter argument that unoins are not free market. A union is a self organized force, it is a self imposed regulations. Libertarians have NO PROBLEM (sorry need to emphasize that) with SELF IMPOSED regulations, they have a problem with government imposed regulations. THey (and I) feel that the consumer and the worker are best at deciding what is best for the consumer and the worker. The government is neither good at nor has any reason to decide what is best for the consumer and the worker.

"By "true monopoly," I guess you mean a complete monopoly. So what if they cannot exist? It doesn't matter. History says it doesn't matter. Find one economist who says the effects of a monopoly require a complete monopoly. Standard Oil never had a complete monopoly. Cargill doesn't have a monopoly on grain shipment. Intel doesn't have a monopoly on computer processors. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems. "

I would consider a 'complete monopoly' absolute market control over a product which every needs (like AIR or something). Since there is no product like that, people can simply choose not to buy the product. In that way, market forces still control the prices of products in a 'monopoly' so they arent really monopolies. If all the Oil producing nations decided to cut thier production to 1/4, raising the price 4 fold, then it would be cheaper and easier to synthesize fuels right out of the air. Competing technologies, new innovations, and alternate comparable products always limit the effect of a monopoly. If my local phone service (which by the way has a government imposed monopoly) decided to double thier price, I would simply cancel my local phone service. Everybody weighs products or services they buy against thier costs. Every product has a limited benefit that people have a general idea of, which is why we price shop, and wont pay too much for one thing if we dont feel it is 'worth it'. ALl of the 'monopolies' you had mentioned would have waded away even with government interference. Instead millions of tax dollars are wasted on splitting microsoft into a internet company AND a OS company. (which by the way will do nothing for thier OS 'monopoly', maybe if they had split microsoft into TWO competing OS/APP/Internet companies it would make a difference) But regardless, some other company will usurp them soon enough, or more likely there will no longer be desktop home OS but everything will be terminal based over the internet, and maybe oracle or sun will lead that market.

Matus