Greg Ransom writes that: >> The notion that classical liberals see property ownership as 'natural' is largely bunk -- and casting the issue in these terms is a form of spin of the sort you get from political handlers and hacks. << So, Greg, are you saying that John Locke, who many see as the founder of classical liberalism and was clearly an important intellectual predecessor of Adam Smith, didn't posit in the "state of nature" the existence of a generally-accepted morality, in which "all men may be restrained from invading others' rights" (SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT, ch. 2), including private property rights (ch. 5)? or are you saying that he was a handler or a hack? or is it that the "state of nature" wasn't natural? I am sure that if faced with a logical or empirical argument (of which there are many), the followers of Locke would admit that private property rights are not "natural" (thus requiring the power of the state to impose) or that Locke's "state of nature" is an imaginary normative situation, one that could never exist. But the vision of private property rights as "natural" keeps on coming up in the classical liberal tradition and not just in political speeches. Smith talks about the realm of "natural liberty," while Alfred Marshall asserted that the alleged tendency for nature to make no leaps (which seems to have been rejected by science since then) was somehow relevant to the economy. Further, the vision of natural magnitudes standing behind some of the most important elements of the economic system has a long history from Smith (natural prices), to Knut Wicksell (the natural interest rate), to Roy Harrod (natural growth rate), to Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman (natural unemployment rate). The mainstream of economics -- a major standard-bearer for classical liberalism -- actively eschews institutionalism, arguing instead that the world we live in is simply the effect of natural variables, i.e., technology (which simply reveals the natural laws of physics, etc.) and preferences (reflecting human nature). Though it's intellectually indefensible and thus would not be defended at length by professors, the content of the classical liberal rhetoric is that capitalism is "natural" and that non-capitalist systems are unnatural acts. Of course, the military and the CIA are then mobilized to prove by force of arms (to those who deign to disagree) that capitalism is indeed natural, as with Nicaragua. Then, the IMF and the World Bank move in to deny desperately-needed credit to those who deny the faith that capitalism is natural, as has happened in hundreds of countries. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] <74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
