>----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
>At 09:29 AM 6/11/2008, Pat Gunning wrote:
>
>>Mises's goal was to provide a framework for 
>>dealing with phenomena that had previously not 
>>been clearly identified as distinct from 
>>other phenomena. That phenomena is interaction among distinctly human actors.
>
>I was so astounded when I came across these 
>sentences, that I didn't quite know what to do. 
>The first reaction is to make a flip or satirical 
>reply, "Right, no one else has ever commented on 
>human relations." 
.....
>
>Since you cannot mean what you said, you can only 
>mean something different (there's an axiom for 
>you), and not merely different, but darker. You 
>can only mean (correct me if I am wrong) that it 
>has not been handled to your satisfaction, and 
>more, that you have discovered a way of handling 
>it to everybody's satisfaction, or at least to 
>everybody who will be admitted to the company of 
>"reasonable men." 


First, John, I was not writing about myself although I was writing about my interpretation. Second, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think that you read the sentences carefully because the topic of your posting does not relate to my meaning or, as I reread them now, to my words.

Also the focus of my message was economics. So I meant that economists had not clearly identified interaction among distinctly human actors as distinct from other phenomena. There were philosophers who had done so; but they were not interested in evaluating arguments in favor of or against market intervention. There may also have been poets and artists. I wouldn't know much about them.

The subject matter of economics prior to Mises is discussed by Kirzner in the book "The Economic Point of View," which Sam referred us to earlier. Would I be too assertive to suggest that you read it?

Pat Gunning