This is a continuation of a previous post in which Tom says, "The principle on which human interactions, political or economic, must be based are those of individual rights." Sounds like the mantra straight from the Obectivist Newsletter of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, this soundbite isn't true.

In point of fact, the genius of the American Constitution lies in it being the first written national document in history to protect individual rights. Obviously there was a history of human interaction prior to the Consitution. And please keep in mind individual rights were placed in the Constitution as an afterthought in an act of--dare I use the term-appeasement to get the document signed.

Governments have always been based upon concepts of legitimacy: Divine Rights-rule bequethed by God; Hereditability, Conquest; self-rule, confederation, etc. In short, as you say, there are hundreds of social living arrangements not based on individual rights. These forms gain their legitimacy by various means of force and coercison- religion being one of history's best used tools for this purpose.

The "Free-Market" capitalism you worship grew out of the Mercantilism of Florence, Italy. A society that had no concept of individual rights, and in which rule was by family structure. What is called the Clan system.

When Tom says, "I think most people say "democracy," they are referring in shorthand to a checks-and-balances representative system similar to that in America, or like partilamentary systems in other nations." Somehow, Tom's interpretation of what "most people are thinking" appears as a less than adequate basis for defining terms for discussion.

When "free markets" are spoken of in economic terms, the concept of Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer is being evoked. This principle is a market operating without any restraint-let it alone, let it be is a fair translantion. No where, at no time has this sort of market existed. This is the sort of mythology that serves no analytical purpose. All markets at all time have contstraints on them of one sort or another. The paradigm of the Florentine markets were contstrained by capital requirements in which the church made the lending of money into the sin of usuary for christians. Thus, non-christians gained a monopoly position in financing trade.

So, I dispute the postion that "free markets and free systems (whatever they may be?) are a consequence of principles...." All markets and governments are, in my opinion, developed as a result of historical accidents and evolve reaching for that "comparative advantage" that Adam Smith talked about to move towards what is described a the "principle of convergence." This is the only principle involved.

Publius