John Law based his economic rationale on Land (prices) but Land moves too spasmodically, and hence prices fail.
"land is the highest extent of privatism because land cannot be created unless you go uber-netherlands."
Very true, Singapore does the same - but land also has a degree of worth not only in scarcity but in location. The tundra is worthless but a street in Hong Kong is worth big bucks... This was the main issue with Das Kapitals main assumption of land values. I would say that Credit replaced land as early as 1300's in Florence... It just that the Russian banks are aware of Russian MPS so they are reluctant to issue loans. Many Asian nations have long shistories of welath and little land ownership - the capital wealth and silver was what floated their capitalism. Besides this, if Russia created land subsidies they would just create inflation, and this would bring the economy down big time. They do not need a repeat of the 50's.
" I do like him, and I can discuss about taoism if you wish, it's the religion I feel more identificated with and know more about asides from christianism, yet I am not a taoist)"
Yes I like it too, but unfortunately you have to be born into or marry into Taoism. The practice is very esoteric and takes years to cultivate. Interestingly enough, I had no Idea (at the time late 90's) that the Tao te ching was even a religious text! I though it was philosophy. But the clarity appealed to me. After reading the Tao te ching, I began to consider the origins of philosophy and became more interested in religion.
"Good, but the question is if there is something as a "natural path". Taking the path of Ortega y Gasset's argumentation on techne, man is naturally rational "
But man does have a religious desire!...this is a natural phenomonia of the brains physiochemistry. Communism is devoid of religion and therefore is a feature of "man's knowledge" and is not inspired... We could also draw on the myth of prometheus or the myth of Eden and the forbidden friut... as a metaphor of communism.
"You probably know about Quijote, or Quixote"
Indeed, It is a brilliant work. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza discover the fleeing couple in a friendly gypsy camp. All are inspired by the romance of the night. As the vision of Dulcinea appears to him, Don Quixote realizes Kitri is not his ideal, but indeed belongs with Basilio. Suddenly the wind gains momentum. Don Quixote foolishly attacks a windmill, believing it to be a giant threatening Dulcinea's safety. Failing miserably, he collapses into a deep sleep.
Quixote, is at heart a traditionalist, who sees the old world being replaced by the modern. His conviction is so great that the evils in his quest represent those relatively new technologies of the new world. The windmill represents the rape of myth... that is to say man is becoming a drone of the technocrat and as a result his natural inclination and interest in the old mystical (represented by the gypsies) is eroded.
To me the Quixotes are the 1% of society who will die for what they believe in, while the Sanchos are the 99% of men who have not learnt (by no fault of their own) the falsehood of the changing world. Quixotes are in tune with the eternal realm - while Sanchos are obsessed unknowingly by the changing world. This is why Sanchos was such a lame ordinary everyday man, while Quixote was old-fashioned and inspiring.
