Michael Perelman (on the Pen-l list) wrote, >Salon magazine today has an interesting feature about the law and >economics programs and luxury treatment given to judges who are willing >to submit to the laissez faire ideology that these types dish out. > >http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1999/03/cov_17feature.html "Interesting feature" has to rank as the understatement of the month. If you have a web browser, READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE. If you don't, let me know and I'll send you a copy of the article by email. The article talks about the John M. Olin foundation. My usual practice when I come across a piece of "analysis" that smells like thinly disguised propaganda is to check for funding sources of the author. The frequency with which Olin comes up is an indication of how deep those pockets are. The Olin fortune came from the "laissez faire" activity of selling munitions to the government. Nothing could be more "laissez faire" than war profiteering and then using the proceeds to buy the politicians and judges, eh? Sounds simplistic? The plain word for it is corruption. In his 1887 essay, "Relation of the State to Industrial Action", Henry C. Adams gave a precise account of how the laissez faire doctrine promotes not just weak governments but corrupt governments. That essay (of course!) has been all but forgotten. Adams has been all but forgotten. As a principle of classical political economy, the doctrine of laissez faire rested on a logically inconsistent syllogism that relies on a vague and shifting definition of "interests". In the late 19th century, when the logical incohence of the classical political economy became plain even to its defenders, the *moral* laissez faire of Spencer and Cairnes shifted from reliance on scientific principle to a common sense rule of conduct: "it is prudent to be conservative". That is to say, the burden of proof regarding government intervention should lie on the advocates of intervention. Adams' essay shows just how to establish that proof. Although it often characterized as "social darwinism", present day laissez faire has more to do with Disney than with Darwin. It is a cynical lie that portrays the throbbing heart of a mass-marketed, heavily state-subsidized, monopoly corporate empire as nostalgic "Main Street U.S.A." The Law and Economics crowd aren't against government subsidies and special treatment -- they are creatures of subsidies and privileges. What they are against is 1. other people feeding at "their" trough and 2. any legal restraint on their monopoly franchise. regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
