[PEN-L:33281] Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx

["Ian Murray" <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>

> Aren't governments unownable by definition? Sure some factions/classes
> may think the government their personal property, but don't we deride
> that as delusional?

officially, the Absolutist kings owned their states (l'état c'est moi!)
and
appointed the boards of directors (i.e., governments). The equivalents
of
today's left existing at the time might have seen this claim as
delusional,
but it was backed by the force of arms. Might may not make right in the
moral sense of the word, but it often does so in practice.

=====================

And how many absolute monarchies still exist today? Isn't that an
example of a modicum of progress, a gift from the struggles of the past?





> Non-interference in "the market" is a legal
> impossibility, no?

Markets couldn't exist without the state, but common mythology (shared
by
many econo-dunderheads) has it that markets are "natural."

Jim

===============

Well, since we have no idea as to what is non-natural, we can chalk that
up to insufficient attention to language.


Ian