>> "rules of the game," as you call them, are the product of government, and that intervention is very different from the application of a rule of law, i.e., of just conduct. <<
You misunderstand the point. Government itself is a product of social organization and unless you are willing to argue that "just conduct" is some kind of physical fact and not a social construct then the whole think falls flat on its face.
After all, what are general rules of conduct? Are they genetically based, evolutionary in nature, did God ordain them??? Are the immutable, possibly Platonic ideals? Where do they come from. What are their principles, can we deduce secondary just behaviour from them? This is the realm of Plato and Kant.
To recap; Of course we can't solve all our organizational problems with Government alone. There is always the creative and evolutionary element. As well as surprises and events beyond our control.
To appeal to the kind of closed systems logic that you have presented, is to argue tangentially that the Government shouldn't intervene in this case. I find your appeal to Mies and Hayek is a bankrupt effort to somehow excuse MS for its actions.
Anyway, I've been in a number of Bauhaus buildings, they don't impress. They didn't impress the German workers either.
Finally, I find your tone with "if you had a solid grounding in classical liberal jurisprudence..." somewhat ridiculous. Although I like Hayek for the clarity of his thought, that doesn't mean I blindly accept his ideas.
Thure |
