On Sep 15, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Eubulides
> <paraconsistent at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> As those who have heard of Smith and Quesnay know, laisser-faire is an
>>> economic ideology, not a political theory.
>>>
>>> Shane Mage
>>>
>> ===============
>>
>> Oh please. There's no economic theory that isn't a political
>> theory. Funny
>> how some marxists believe in the very "liberal art of separation"
>> they
>> decry; let the left hand know not what the right hand is doing..
>
>
> Shane, could you possibly tell us your distinction between the two?
> I don't
> see it either, but will entertain the possibility that it's there.
>
Disboulides [inversely] mistranslates my "laisser-faire is an economic
ideology, not a political theory" as"no economic theory that isn't a
political theory." So let me tell the difference between economic
*ideology* and political *theory*: an economic ideology proposes an
"ideal" system of productive/exchange social relationships that would
be "best" whatever set of political institutions (consistent with it)
were established. Example: Ludwig von Wieser, Austrian laisser-faire
economist, claimed to have established "the economic theory of the
communist state" (he was right insofar as only under communism could
market and social valuations of "marginal utility" perfectly
coincide). A political theory, on the other hand, would claim
validity for application to any historical sociaty, whatever its
structure of production/exchange relationships. Example: Viconian
"corsi e recorsi."
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to be called Zeus."
Herakleitos of Ephesos