Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:08:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Kevin Cabral <kcabral-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re:Trust


On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Chris M. Sciabarra wrote:

> de-stabilizing to social order.   Ultimately, because it has a
> monopoly on the coercive use of force, and because it almost always, in
> the modern era, monopolizes key aspects of the economy -- credit and
> banking, telecommunications, etc. -- it can, it must necessarily enrich
> certain groups at the expense of other groups.  The old classical liberals
> who pioneered class analysis before Marx, suggested that it was state
> action that was at the foundation of the formation of classes, and I think
> that class warfare is something that requires a state.

> Can we exist without a state?  I'm undecided, quite frankly.  I think
> libertarians sometimes offer a pie-in-the-sky solution, but they do make
> important historical points about the spontaneous generation of legal and
> judicial functions outside the state apparatus.  What all libertarians

	In the absense of class struggle the coercive aspects of the state
may be less needed, but ultimately I think the libertarian world-view will
always require a state to enforce property rights and mediate class
struggle plus respond to the demands of patronage that are quite natural
in a democratic society. Unless you really think that it's possible to
convince everyone, no matter what their situation, of the holy writ of
rule of private property. Also you'll need a state to mediate differences
between capitalists and citizens over property, markets, externality, etc.  

Kevin





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---