buying professors

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Wed Sep 8 14:16:51 PDT 1999


Well, as the attorney Lenin said, law is politics. So, law and economics would be political economy. Why not go back to the classical name for economics, poltical economy, a more holistic approach, and everything will be everything ? Oh and Lenin and the Bolsheviks certainly demonstrated that Marx had some incites into the objective laws of capitalism. Lenin's success where the unemployed professor Marx fell down may have been due to the emphasis of lawyers on the unity of theory and practice. But anti-trust laws are a hoax. By the way, Marx majored in jurisprudence , but strayed into other subjects.

Viva Fidel !

A People's Attorney


>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 09/08/99 09:38AM >>>
Not proven, Ian. There are progressive professors of law, who touch on economic issues, but the people you mentioned are outside of the law and economics school, which emphasizes the application of economic theory as a basis for the law.

Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:


> YES!!!!!!

If you want to define "law and economics" as the application of reactionary economic theory to legal issues, then you are likely to conclude L&E has no progressive voices. But why allow the creeps to define the boundaries of the discipline?

In fact law profs write in depth about economic issues. This is certainly true in the tax field. They can be liberal, conservative, or radical. I don't see why they should not be considered to be doing "law and economics," not unlike the attorneys on this list.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list