Re: Re: Re: Re: Question for the Lefties -- II

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeffrey Beatty wrote:
> Apropos of the latter, your comments express surprise at discovering that
> professional economists' notions of "natural" property rights are
> descendents of Locke's ideas about property rights.  If you check out the
> early pages of the _Second Treatise of Government_, you will find that at
> one point Locke's notion of "natural property rights" presupposes resource
> abundance--that nature provides "enough and to spare" for everyone.  I've
> often wondered about the implications of contemporary environmental
> dilemmas for Locke's analysis.

of course, land and other gifts of nature have _never_ been anything but
non-scarce (in Locke's time, the Europeans treated them as abundant because
they could steal them). It's part of Locke's flim-flam.

> I like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs.  I wonder whether or not
> a political economy could be based upon the assumption that maximization
> of Maslowian need fulfillment, rather than production of private goods and
> services for consumption, was the goal to be achieved. Of course, this
> would imply a "rethinking" of the nature of the fundamental economic problem.

Some heterodox economists have been very interested in Maslow (as have
management theorists, such as the textbook BEHAVIOR IN ORGANIZATIONS, by
Porter, Lawler, and Hackman, 1975). One heterodox economist pointed out to
me that Maslow's hierarchy hardly deals with the fact that a lot of people
have sacrificed their lives (Maslow's "low level" needs) in order to attain
esteem, reputation, etc. (one of his high-level needs), contrary to what
Maslow suggest should happen. But I'm no expert on Maslow. I do know that
self-actualization is in some ways similar to Aristotle's true happiness,
though obviously the former is more psychologized.

In any event, it wouldn't hurt economists (NC, Marxian, etc.) to study
psychology rather than assuming a specific version or ignoring it.

> ... The antipathy I expressed toward the Hayekian school comes from
> philosophical disagreement, but at least as much from some personal
> antagonism between me and a particular Hayekian on another list.  I'm
> fresh from a cyberwar of about three years' duration with this
> person.  ... Fortunately, not all Hayekians are like him.

I spell the man's name "H*yek" in order to avoid drawing in one H fanatic
who is boring and tends to dominate, turning all discussions into ones
about H.

> ...  Maybe it just means Nixon was a closet Democrat.  ...

He was definitely more of an adherent to the L-word than Clinton. By
today's standards, Nixon was a genius and a saint...Of course, it was the
grass-roots mobilizations of the time that made him so by pushing him
politically (and the lack thereof which made Clinton into ... well ...
Clinton).

BTW, according to Christopher Hitchens, the Democratic Leadership Council
(what I think of as the Leninist vanguard party of the "New Democrats")
were originally called "Democrats for Nixon." (Of course, Hitchens is a bit
flaky.)

BTW2, Justin is no libertarian.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine