buying professors

[Charles Brown]

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