Five more Plist-related 'finds' while not looking

[Ian Livingston]

Is any economy natural?

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Bailey wrote:
>>
>> anarchy denotes no ruler,
>> not necessarily that there are no laws.
>>
>> For one thing, there are physical laws that can't be ignored.
>>
>> More germane to a poly-sci discussion, many have said that
>> there are, or ought to be, natural laws for human relations
>>
>> I think anarchist thinkers mostly started by
>> responding to the fact that the existing ruling classes
>> were flouting natural law.
>>
>> From there, a study of history and current events
>> may lead to the notion that vesting a group with power
>> inevitably leads to abuses.
>>
>> The only way to perceive that ruling classes abuse natural
>> law is to believe in some kind of natural law...
>>
>> so, qed, and tautologically, anarchy doesn't mean no law -
>> quite the contrary...right?
>
> . . .
> The elites rule by claiming natural law favors them by accidents of birth,
> race and wealth and so they embody natural law.  Marx was one to point out
> that our political economy is man made and so can be changed by man.
>



-- 
"liber enim librum aperit."