Ian says: >Been reading William Niskanen and William Riker lately, Jim?<
I don't get your drift. What do these folks say, beyond the usual "public choice school" stuff? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24421] Re: the state > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > More and more, I think of state bureaucrats and politicians under > capitalism > > as a fraction of capital, similar to banking capital. Remember that > > industrial capitalists are willing to give up a part of the > surplus-value > > (interest) to the bankers even though the latter don't produce > > surplus-value, since the bankers act as financial intermediaries, > easing the > > flow of capital funds. Similarly, the industrial capitalists are > willing to > > give up some surplus-value (taxes, bribes, campaign > contributions) to > the > > state apparatus because of individual services rendered, along with > general > > protection of property rights and lawnorder. Just as with the > relations > > between industrial and banking capital, the relationship between > industrial > > capital and the state need not be totally happy all the time. > =================== > > Been reading William Niskanen and William Riker lately, Jim? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This would fit in with Wood's argument (in _Democracy against > > Capitalism_) that capitalism artificially divided the political into > the > > two separate realms of "the political" and "the economy." If one > takes > > "politics" to be concerned with the allocation of human activity, > then > > "economics" is the guise that this political activity takes on under > > capitalism. And in the latest stages of capitalism the line has > become > > thinner and thinner. > > > > =============== > > Isn't more likely that the *narratives* and explanations offered by > historians and other social observers either unwittingly or > deliberately obscured the relations between State officials and > capitalists? While I'd be the last to deny the ideological purposes > that many of the narratives serve, we shouldn't brush aside > how many in > the business community truly hate governments and the way some of the > capitalist class manipulate the State for advantages and privileges > enrages many other from the same class. Small businesses *do* want to > be left alone as much as possible and many hate politics as it > currently exists. This is part and parcel of why proprietors of small > business have enormous contempt for large companies, they > know they got > that way by calling on the nanny state. > > In an article titled "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" by > Roderick Long, which I stumbled upon in the journal 'Social Philosophy > & Policy', Long quotes a libertarian writer - Paul Weaver- who rails > against the State-Corporate nexus: > > "The corporation had never been for markets, limited government, > private property, or the other associated with the business cause...It > had always tried to derive private advantage from public policy...The > corporation was created by people who thought the market generally > inefficient, backward, a drag on progress, a difficulty to be gotten a > round...From the dawn of the modern corporation...the business lobby > continued its campaign for public policies to keep prices > high, provide > subsidies and incentives, and control new entrants." [from 'The > Suicidal Corporation'] > > The Smithian legacy still runs deep, not out of a nostalgia for small > shops --although that does exist for some, but that human > beings should > make minimal demands on each other for the sake gaining mutual > *advantage* -a most mysterious concept- in the process of developing > commercial networks. Richard Epstein, Jan Narveson and others in the > libertarian camp aren't afraid of economies of scale, they're just > concerned with the manner in which human beings achieve complex forms > of cooperation. Woe to those who ignore the contradictions of > liberty..... > > The Roderick Long piece is interesting and worth a look.... > > Ian >
