Samuel Bostaph wrote:
>    Let's face it; Friedman has always been a soft-core socialist, as Walter
>    Block pointed out to all of us at the HOES 
> meetings in Vancouver a few years
>    ago.


One can certainly make that case, although it 
seems to me that this means that "socialism" will 
now cover a much wider spectrum than one might 
have expected. Does this not lead to an 
interesting quandary, since Friedman's ideas are 
certainly embodied in many actual aspects of the 
economy and many actual policies of the gov't? If 
Friedman and his policies are socialist, and the 
gov't and the economy are following those 
policies, and the economy "works" (define that as 
you will), therefore socialism works. Socialism 
is thereby rescued from "the dust-bin of history" 
and made an essential element of functional 
economies. The pragmatic argument against 
socialism ("it just doesn't work") therefore 
disappears; instead, socialism becomes part of 
parcel of economies judged to be "successful."

I don't know if I want to go there.

John C. Medaille