[OT] Dry writers and economic systems

[Jack Diederich]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
> > I often wonder whether socialism might not have been more popular if
> > it had been presented in less ponderous (not to say turgid) prose.
> 
> Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote previously:
> |Capitalism did survive despite the turgid prose of Von Mises, no?-)
> 
> I would say that capitalism DID NOT survive Von Mises.  Every existing
> national economy--including (or especially) those that most tout
> capitalism--have substantial state involvement in corporate affairs.
> <bits about special interests clipped>

Lulu,

I'm sure you would argue that Marxism has never failed -- because it has
never been tried.  In that light Capitalism has never been tried, but the
approximations that have do better than the approximations of any other
ideal we've tried.

For philosipher bashing.  Mises was dry, overly verbose, and a snob.  Rothbard
writes very accessably, which is a shame because he's a lecturing prick.
Rousseau couldn't fit enough angels on the head of a pin no matter how 
many books he wrote.  And Hegel was apparently trying to start a religion 
(while on LSD).

Hayek and Hume, quite readable if you can get over the fact they write
in the academic styles of their times (dead and very dead white guys, 
respectively).  But accessable and clear compared to the above roll call.

-jackdied

.sig
Most recently heard joke:

What do you call a Frenchman advancing on Baghdad?
A Salesman.