Re: European Union

[Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@xxxxxxxx>]

A. S. Fatemi wrote:
>
> Hyman's writing on the "Property and the State" suffers from a
> methodological error in using the argument of "time" for definition of
> property rights:

It is not MY error, if you choose to call it error.  That is precisely
what the law states.  One is granted custodianship ("ownership" is very
misleading term) by the group only during the time he lives, and can
comply with other rules set up by the group.  He may not, for example
exercise legal control over an automobile until he is at least 16 in
most jurisdictions.  Though he may have the firmest form of title,
greater than lessee, granted in that automobile, the automobile is
subject to confiscation whenever the group, its real owner (management
and courts under group direction) deems it essential for the welfare of
the group, with or without compensation, as the group management feels
warranted.  He must certainly must give up that custodianship when he
dies, he can't take it with him, though the group may allow him, a
priori, to designate the next custodian by will or trust.  All this, of
course, withing an abundant society, otherwise more figorous rules must
apply, as in a so-called "dictatorship."  The difference is one only of
abundance or scarcity.

> Economics, as a social science, does not have an
> existence theorem.

A "science" presumes knowledge of that field sufficient to demonstrate
success.  Doctrinaire Economics is Not a Social Science because it has
always been an abysmal failure in its avowed purpose, to advance social
welfare.  It may pretend to be "social," but a "science" it definitely
is not.  It has turned out to be nothing but a self aggrandizing
collection of scholars who have managed to befuddle the public and its
leaders, gained a tremendous degree of unwarranted respectability and
prestige, has infested every nook and cranny of our society, advises
Presidents and Kings, and is directly responsible for all the human
misery, crime, violence and war this last century. Our future looks
exceedingly dim so long as this situation is maintained.

> This is to say that economics takes the man and the
> society as the a priori requisites for its own subject matter. "The limit
> of life", as used by Hyman, is an attribute of man's biological
> "existence" to which the social science is an a posteriori construction.
> To use such a pre-required element in an argument about a category belonging
> to the "a posteriori", is a methodological confusion and thus
> irrelevant.
>
What is relevant is that the entire subject of practical economics is a
rather easy system to comprehend. Even a new born baby knows it all at
birth.  All it consists of is a feeling of a pang of hunger, doing
something about it, such as cry out, or forage and till the soil
sufficently so, (a knowledge accomplished fully a century ago) and the
result, peace and contentment, plus the desire to do something worthy of
one's Self Esteem.

All a viable economic system needs is bookkeeping and maintenance of
inventory and a distribution system, all of it already in place, but
needing that basic, elementary understanding, to effectively resolve ALL
our social problems.  All this scholarly erudition of the alleged Social
"scientist" can and ought to be applied to reeducation and application
to the Real Sciences.  So there will be a modicum of ego trauma.  Is
that ego worth the destruction of our civilization, as it has
unnecessarily destroyed countless lives this last century.

Hyman

> H. Mansoor
> Economist

I'd be embarrassed to be called "economist."