----- Original Message ----- From: "Max B. Sawicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 9:05 PM Subject: [PEN-L:24527] RE: Re: We are what's left
> I agree with the thrust of this, Max. You have to be pretty pure and > very lonely to be a proper lefty by some lights. But, I'd argue that > Smith reckoned the good social effects would only come if the > self-seeking business fraternity were very closely watched by state > agencies, else they'd nefariously combine towards bad social effects. I > > mbs: quite right. > > have heard such sentiments from Nader in the past. Now he's saying the > state agencies are nefariously combining with the self-seeking > businessmen, isn't he? That pretty well matches Jim Devine's recent > musings on the state, as I recall. And Jim's plenty left for me. > Cheers, > Rob. > > mbs: Nader's focus is not on the state but on the political > parties which run the state, which is the right one IMO. ======================== The problem with that focus is that it assumes the state, as a *dang in sich*, has sufficient neutralizing constraints on how political parties can manipulate the institutional structure for rent seeking purposes. The moment we see the form of the State and it's appuratuses as *products* of rent seeking behavior by political parties and their financiers and to a much lesser extent other factions, the bias in the constitutional form of the State becomes evident. An incorruptible and neutral State is an impossibility and, as Warren Samuels and Steven Medema have pointed out tirelessly, the very existence of the State creates the opportunities for rents. Hence, the Right's incessant call for the minimalist state. Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule" lays it all out brilliantly. Ian
