September 22, 2005
Oh yeah, my grandma used to talk about property rights

Not sure if this expands on Craig's "Property rights? What property rights?" line of thinking. The BBC had a vote for greatest philosopher of all time. The winner likely will generate less controversy than the votes on the next season of American Idol, but is anyone surprised that BBC voters chose Marx (Karl, not Richard)? GWB's favorite philosopher didn't even make the top ten, but you could argue that one of his more famous students did; St. Thomas Aquinas came in 7th. Both holy candidates were beaten by Friedrich "God is Dead" Nietzsche who just missed the bronze.

We make fun of the flat-earth society, but is being a Marxist much different? The typical rejoinder is "true Marxism has never been tried anywhere. It always gets corrupted by the people trying to implement it." I've been trying to get people to subscribe to my philosophy of anti-gravitism or levitism on the same grounds. Sure, things fall to the earth but my belief in a world without gravity just hasn't been attempted in the proper circumstances yet. I think I need someone with a rugged, bearded face as my primary proponent. Maybe this comes close.

What I've never understood is that, since Marx believed that communism was the inevitable result of capitalism's also inevitable implosion, should not all Marxists be the biggest champions of capitalism? Championing capitalism's progress will hasten its demise, if Marx is right. Of course, it leads a Marxist into the predicament of criticizing a system that, historically speaking, has done the most, relative to all other economic systems, to better the lives of those Marxists are supposedly trying to help.

We are ready to fire the heads of FEMA, Homeland Security, even Bush himself, over a thousand dead from Katrina, yet people love the figurehead of a philosophical movement that has killed tens of millions. If only we could tie Marx to Halliburton, maybe people would stop idolizing him.

Hat tip to Acton's Samuel Gregg.

Posted by Tim Shaughnessy at 06:52 PM in Economics  ·  TrackBack (0)

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith

Our Bloggers
Joshua Hall
Robert Lawson
E. Frank Stephenson
Michael C. Munger
Lawrence H. White
Craig Depken
Tim Shaughnessy
Edward J. Lopez
Brad Smith
Mike DeBow
Wilson Mixon
Art Carden

Blogroll

Search

Archives
By Author:
Joshua Hall
Robert Lawson
E. Frank Stephenson
Michael C. Munger
Lawrence H. White
Edward Bierhanzl
Craig Depken
Ralph R. Frasca
Tim Shaughnessy
Edward J. Lopez
Brad Smith
Mike DeBow
Wilson Mixon
Art Carden

By Month:
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004

Powered by
Movable Type 2.661

Site design by
Sekimori

XML