Re:How ‘big law’ makes big money
by rayiner on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @04:53PM
(#22251357)
I'm saying the article is a Marxist screed, not the book the article is talking about. Nobody who talks about the "violence" of "enclosure" is anything other than a Marxist. It’s expressly Marxist terminology. And I’m flagging that because if you’re not a Marxist, it’s hard to even follow the reasoning of the article.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How ‘big law’ makes big money
by jessaustin on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @06:27PM
(#22251964)
Sure, and nobody who talks about "natural monopolies" is anyone other than a telecom lawyer. The fact that we have different working vocabularies doesn't mean we can't communicate. I'm not a Marxist, and I'm reading TFA with interest.
A careful reconsideration of how the Law adjudicates questions of property and how it changes hands might lead to a complete Bolshevik confiscation of all the McMansions. That's unlikely, however. It could be that nothing comes of this line of thought. What I would hope, instead, would be for small improvements to be made, so that some of the vast advantages enjoyed by well-lawyered capitalists might be eliminated in favor of a more just and fair system for everyone.
Are you claiming that "enclosure" is a Marxist term, or that the notion that the historical process of enclosure involved a significant amount of violence is a Marxist notion?
Re:How ‘big law’ makes big money
by machawinka on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @08:56PM
(#22252827)
Everytime I see an elemental critic of the these legalisms and its schemes, there is always someone trying to play the marxist card. Someone who hasn't read a single line of Marx's books.
This is not marxist. And if it were marxist then: so what?