What a woman! SLT Today reports, Alberta Slavin, who founded the consumer movement in Missouri 40 years ago with a group of housewives angry over grocery prices, died Oct. 27, 2008...Her Housewives Elect Lower Prices (HELP) group gained national prominence in 1967 targeting supermarkets over high prices in inner city neighborhoods. She then formed the Utility Consumers Council of Missouri after the phone company cut off her service because she wasn't using a company-approved telephone.

I'm sorry Slavin included government as a partner in her crusades but I do admire the woman's refusal to lie and take whatever drek treatment a corporation or business deals out. St. Ayn notwithstanding, businessmen are no more honest or decent than the next person; when you add in the legal privileges/protections extended to corporations that are not 'enjoyed' by individuals -- e.g. limited liability for your acts -- businessmen become less honest and decent.

An aspect of the free market -- the real free market, sans government, not the wretched State capitalism of today -- that receives scant attention from libertarians is the vital role played by activist consumers and consumer advocacy groups. They are part of the feedback mechanism that makes the marketplace function well. Just as unions ((again sans government) act as a brake on bad labor practices so, too, do consumer activists mitigate bad sales or service practices. I sometimes wonder if libertarianism's overwhelming focus on the businessman's side of the free market exchange, which is only 50% of the picture, gives the impression that libertarians are either anti-consumer or indifferent to consumers who are the average guy or gal on the street.

I respect individuals and groups who demand fair treatment and a good value before handing over hard-earned money. As a consumer, I benefit from every person who demands his money back when the service or good does not live up to what was promised. Austrian economists tell you that if a business has 'unfair' practices, then a competitor will move in and scoop up all the dissatisfied customers. I firmly believe the analysis is correct in the long run and that the self-corrections of the free market are infinitely preferable to government intervention.

But the answer sometimes seems pat to me and dismissive of consumers who do not live in the long run but must care for their families on a daily basis. Especially today, when people are functioning on the financial edge, the margin of time that self-corrections can take may be ruinous to some. Being powerless...that's one of the main reasons people turn to government; they feel otherwise powerless over unfairness in an areas that is important to their lives. Grabbing onto your own power as a consumer -- as a full 50% of the free exchange -- can makes bad situations change in a flash..and standing up for yourself has the non-trivial additional benefit of making you feel wonderful about yourself.

Even if it is a small act, like sending badly cooked food back in a restaurant, it is important to stand up for yourself. And it is a lightning quick way to sort good businesses out from the bad ones. If the business responds to your reasonable complain by trying to satsify you -- sometimes a simple apology will do -- then it deserves your loyalty and your endorsement to others. If not, then not.

Again, the problem comes when 1) the service or good being sold is essential, 2) there is only one provider, and, 3) the start-up cost of the business is high and, so, competitors do not flood toward it and, so, 4) there is no short alternative...or, perhaps, even a foreseeable altnerative. One example: we are having a real problem with the veterinary clinic in our area which provides an ongoing service that is essential to our dog. At an appointment next week, we intend to both complain and explain. The explaining part is important because you should always assume you are dealing with reasonable people who wish to rectify a bad situation of their own making. We will see what happens and, depending on the conversation's conclusion, we may take certain stteps such as eliminating all non-essential visits.

Austrian economists will read the foregoing and patiently explain to me (perhaps in the tone used with small children) that consumer feedback has always been acknowledged as part of the self-correcting mechanism of the free market. And, of course, that is true. My point is that consumer activism seems to be a much ignored and little respected aspect of a healthy free market; it is acknowledged as a footnote not as a full 50% of the exchange. Odd. Because consumer power is one of the main checks on government intervention into the marketplace. When people take care of themselves, they don't look to Big Brother to be their advocate. Consumer activism preserves freedom and the smart and aware consumer should receive as much political and economic respect from libertarians as does the smart and aware enterpreneur.

Why don't they? I suspect that many libertarians simply do not respect the average person on the street.