==================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
I agree with the Bianchi/Perlman distinction between markets and market 
society.  It seems to me that a good part of the political eocnomic 
thought of the 18th Century is a discussion of just how far and how 
effective markets can be when extended to newer areas of life.  And 
Locke's _Second Treatise_ is (among other things) an argument as to why 
land should all be enclosed (not common) and therefore commodified and 
how labor could justifiablely become a commodity as well.  It also seems 
to me that one of THE most important insights of the _Wealth of Nations_ 
(or claims, if not correct insight) is how efficient economic production 
would be if all facets of it were regulated by markets.  Were Locke and 
Smith onto something new?  Or were their insights so trivial, that the do 
not deserve their place in the  history of political-economic thought? 
 
* * * * * * * * * * *  
Michael Gibbons 
Dept. of Government and International Affairs 
University of South Florida 
<[log in to unmask]> 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]