Ian Murray 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?
W once referred --as Dave Barry said, i am not making this up -- to his "investorsm er I mean my contributors."
> Non-interference in "the market" is a legal
impossibility, no?
It's a logical impossibility. If there's no state, there's no property or contract law, so no title to anything, and no sanctioned and enforceable exchanges, so no markets. This is a point Cass Sunstein has usefully insisted on over the years.
jks
- [PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx, (continued)
- [PEN-L:33297] Re: RE: The Economist considers Karl Marx, andie nachgeborenen Sat 21 Dec 2002, 05:54 GMT
- [PEN-L:33276] RE: Re: Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Devine, James Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:33277] The Economist considers Karl Marx, andie nachgeborenen Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:17 GMT
- [PEN-L:33279] Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Ian Murray Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:31 GMT
- [PEN-L:33296] Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, andie nachgeborenen Sat 21 Dec 2002, 05:49 GMT
- [PEN-L:33308] Re: Re: Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Ian Murray Sun 22 Dec 2002, 03:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:33275] Iraq was made for oil..., Louis Proyect Fri 20 Dec 2002, 21:05 GMT
- [PEN-L:33273] U.S. Still Pushing for an "Early Election" in Venezuela, Yoshie Furuhashi Fri 20 Dec 2002, 19:07 GMT
- [PEN-L:33267] Re: The Economist considers Karl Marx, Tom Walker Fri 20 Dec 2002, 17:31 GMT