<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=680181303-24051999>I
would second this as a proposal for a continuing thread on this list; especially
since Doug broached the issue of Corporate Governance in Chapter 6. There
have been several excellent left critiques of property rights in the past few
years; Christman's, Gintis and Bowles latest effort, Duncan Kennedy's, as well
as the genuinely grassroots efforts of Richard Grossman. As algorithms and
genomes (as well as ecosystem devastation and remediation) are going to be with
us for a while, it would be useful to track how well the left positions itself
on these issues.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=680181303-24051999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=680181303-24051999>Since
the US constitution seems to be as obsolete in helping citizens gain genuine
representation as The Critique of Pure Reason is in helping us understand
cognition, we do seem to have our work cut out for us....</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=680181303-24051999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=680181303-24051999>Ian
Murray</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com]<B>On
Behalf Of</B> Tom Lehman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, May 23, 1999 7:31
PM<BR><B>To:</B> lbo-talk@lists.panix.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: reverence for
the constitution<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Charles, I think Mike and Doug are taking
the view first put forward by Charles and Mary Beard in their 1913 book <U>An
Economic Interpretation of the Constitution</U>. This book which is now
a widely accepted classic more or less said that the Constitution had been
shaped by conservative economic interests. The Beards interpretation
could also be said to say that the people who shaped the document were acting
in their own economic interests or in the interest of people with similar
economic interests as their own. i.e. their class interest.
<P>I'd love to get a discussion going on the whole corporate chartering
process. The role of state legislatures and state attorney generals in
this process.
<P>Your email pal,
<P>Tom L. <BR> <BR>
<P>Charles Brown wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">Yes, the Constitution might be best thought of as a
site of continuing struggle ( even though our side seems to be on the
disabled list in the current part of the "season"). "The People" win some,
even the first few lines, but, the Big Cigars are always taking things back.
<P>By framing our revolutionary proposals in Constitutional terms, we
minimize the outlawing of our actions. By the Amendment Provision,
theoretically, very radical changes in the Constitution itself are
CONSTITUTIONAL or eminently legal. Nathan was correct in arguing that a mass
movement must underlie the changes.
<P>Charles Brown
<P>>>> Michael Perelman <michael@ecst.csuchico.edu> 05/22/99
04:19PM >>> <BR>Margaret called the constitution egalitarian.
What? A black is a fraction of a <BR>man, and like women denied the
vote.
<P>The founding fathers were interested in the preservation of
property. They were <BR>worried that the electorate could get too
uppity under the articles of <BR>confederation. They wanted more trade
and more financial control.
<P>The document was prepared under fraudulent conditions (supposedly a minor
<BR>alteration of some technical matters in the Articles of Confederation),
debated <BR>under the greatest secrecy, and then ratified under undemocratic
and probably <BR>fraudulent conditions.
<P>The Constitution offers a few protections, but most of them have been
<BR>grotesquely distorted (e.g. freedom of speech for corporations).
We should hold <BR>fast to these protections since we have so few, but
reverence ....?
<P>-- <BR>Michael Perelman <BR>Economics Department <BR>California State
University <BR>Chico, CA 95929
<P>Tel. 530-898-5321 <BR>E-Mail
michael@ecst.csuchico.edu</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>