[PEN-L:33283] RE: Re: RE: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

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

> > 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?

I wrote:
> 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.

Ian writes:
> 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?

It's possible we could have Absolutism again. That's where the Bush admin. is heading.

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

said I:
> Markets couldn't exist without the state, but common mythology (shared
> by  many econo-dunderheads) has it that markets are "natural."
 
Ian:
> Well, since we have no idea as to what is non-natural, we can
> chalk that up to insufficient attention to language.

I'm only reporting the common myth. Astrology doesn't make sense either, but it's quite popular.
Jim