Cheerleading for government control over our lives, Tim Davis (on June 13) asked: What makes private enterprise less oppressive than government?

He depicted “zombie-like” libertarians as responding mostly with “Uhhh” and “Mooooo.”

Mr. Davis obviously did not ask the opinion of a genuine Libertarian. Rather than mooing, he might have responded as follows:

“State control is more oppressive than a free market because the state claims a monopoly on the use of force. It is the only organization that can legally come to your house and kill you if you refuse to meet its demands.

“No business can similarly compel you to support it, except by convincing the government to make its product mandatory or competing products illegal. Excluding such examples of state coercion, any corporation’s continued prosperity depends upon its continuing to satisfy customers.

“Generally speaking, then, your transactions are voluntary; you spend your money and your time in the ways which you believe will most improve your existence, according to your own tastes. The sum of all financial exchanges by all men — each seeking to improve his circumstances as he sees fit — constitutes the market.

“Some people are unsatisfied with this situation. They note that (inevitably) some wants go unsatisfied. In a free market, some are willing or able to acquire more wealth than others. Some even face grave hardships or discrimination.

“They believe that by granting the government ever more power, we can solve these problems. Perhaps the government will make us all behave wisely and selflessly. But this approach holds grave dangers.

“Consider the Soviet economy as an example. What if those who control the government mistakenly make decisions which will reduce their subjects’ quality of life? As they lack the businessman’s fear of losing his market share or labor force, what will motivate them to respond quickly to public dissatisfaction?

“Now consider Nazi Germany — or American Jim Crow laws. Do you

hope that the state will stamp out prejudice and uplift the poor and downtrodden? How can you know that its limitless coercive power will not be turned yet again to the legal subjugation of such powerless scapegoats?”

It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Davis has answers to these questions — other than “Mooooo.”

Wendy L. Applequist

Graduate Student

Botany