Interesting article that Academia.edu alerted me to: Octavian-Dragomir Jora, Gheorghe Hurduzeu, Mihaela Iacob & Georgiana-Camelia Crețan, “‘Dialectical Contradictions’ in the Neoclassical Theory and Policy Regarding Market Competition: The Consumer and His Continuous Burden of Crisis,” Amfiteatru Economic Journal, Vol. 19, no. 45 (2017), pp. 544–65 [ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest; pdf]. Fascinating when mainstream articles cite and adopt radical libertarian arguments. I guess there is some value to our publishing efforts after all.
It is also argued that both business people and companies “give up” the right to complete freedom when engaging in cartelization and the restriction of production because such behaviour violates the rights of potential consumers. We encounter here a great misunderstanding of rights: the producers have their property (as property owners or mandated managers) and possess all the rights associated with it, including the absolute right not to use their property at all; consumers have full rights over their property, including the absolute right to spend or not their own money. In the most common approach, freedom is the right of a person to dispose of his body (self-ownership), of what he firstly appropriated from nature through processing (homesteaded) or obtained voluntarily. And no other arrangement can be argued as being non-contradictory, for each act of argumentation involves mutual recognition of the selfownership along with the ownership of the other belongings of the participants, qua “teleological extension” of their persons, necessary to the full comfort of the dialogue (Hoppe, 1993; Kinsella, 1996).