Liberalism has a concept of enfranchisement and the Liberal Arts are represented as the proper paideia for those who will inherit such enfranchisement either on reaching their majority or once they have otherwise become financially independent.

There is no endogenous as opposed to arboreal notion of 'self-ownership' for any rigidly designated Liberalism whatsoever- certainly not the 'New Deal' Liberalism which Goldwater rebelled against. Libertarianism is a different kettle of fish. But, in the person of Paul Ryan, and on the issue of Immigration, it has met its Waterloo.

Hohfeld has clarified the types of rights which 'ownership' can give rise to. Coase & Posner- but also Myerson, Satterthwaite et all- have shown why ownership does not matter very much. Classical Liberalism faces no scandal here. John Stuart Mill had himself linked Liberty, not to Immunity but Punishability. It is Tort Law, not some Tyrant, which enforces a universal culpa levis in abstracto punishability.



As far back as the Rule in Shelley's case, English speaking people have recognised that self-interest dictates not 'self-ownership' but beneficial entitlement to something held in Trust. Varoufakis himself is using this sort of rhetoric. He is pretending that Society was constituted as a Trust of which we are the beneficiaries and that we have suffered some malfeasance or tortious interference of an unprecedented kind. You may find this hard to believe, but the guy actually thinks he is a proper intellectual- not a rich kid who got a 2.2 from a third rate University. The sad thing is that tortious interferences are occurring and idiots who talk nonsense prevent sane people tackling the real and justiciable problem in a manner which benefits us all.



Branding is a solution to a coordination problem related to information asymmetry. We don't know whether the Indus Valley Civilisation had a written, or even a common, language. We do know that they had brands and trademarks.



The theory of imperfect competition, even in its most arcane, game theoretic form, has but limped after Jurisprudence in this regard. But such jurisprudence can be found in Ancient Babylon! Varoufakis is making an assertion which was rejected by French and other Courts before Marx was out of nappies! Essentially, what is not 'scenes a faire' is a function of consistent originality, not incessant activity.



A Press Agent is not a slave. One might, say that the Paraclete, on the one hand, and the sycophantes, on the other, are the Greek progenitors of a phenomenon Marx found exemplified in Balzac. But it was already there in Aristophenes! You and I may not want to admit that Plato and Aristotle created Educational Brands and that Academies and Lyceums and Symposiums and such like only arose because of their hard work, consistency, and discipline, but- when we look at Isocrates's Antidosis, we are compelled to change our minds.

I am the same age as Varoufakis and initially had a similar trajectory. In a million years I could not imagine that he could hurt Greece as he did. They are the best people- from oldest to youngest, from rich to poor, all have a sophrosyne which, as if by sympathetic magic, they can transfer all whom the befriend or who befriend them.

Marxism, too, is not some excuse for adolescent self-dramatisation. Alfred Marshall initially saw it as the fulfilment of Classical Liberal Studies and Moral Science.

Schauble was not some programmatic 'Monetarist' or die-hard adherent of some Economic theology. He was a tax lawyer. Had Varoufakis given him some solid evidence that price stability was better realised on a full-employment basis then, both professionally and in foro conscientiae, he'd have been bound to give the matter consideration. After all, the Courts had upheld Draghi. Why not Varoufakis? Moreover, a suave and diplomatic Varoufakis could have used his public celebrity- his 'sex appeal'- to help Schauble's party retain its youth vote.

Varoufakis could have changed history and helped his own people in 2015. He muffed it because he hadn't done his homework. Why not? It's because he didn't really believe that his own people were deserving. Thus, like an adolescent, he deployed the puerile rhetoric of 'dependency' theory. Who harkened to him? The Chinese. Piraeus is now their Trojan Horse.