John C. Medaille wrote:
>
>
>>  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.
>
> Could you be more specific about the difference? I don't see it.
John, if you do not understand something I write, could I suggest that 
you send a personal email asking about this. Surely, the list is not 
interested in our mis-communication. But since this was posted, let me 
refer you to the complete paragraph, instead of just the excerpt that 
you posted in your previous message.

I 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. To even define this phenomena, it is necessary to define what it means to be distinctly human and what it means to be an actor. Once the definitions are made, one can decide for himself whether these are indeed previously unidentified phenomena. It is in this sense that Mises asserted or assumed a priori that praxeology (the study of human action) is a distinct science of which economics (the study of human action under market economy conditions) is the most highly advanced branch. If one does not accept that these phenomena are real or deserving of study, then what Mises assumes is self-evident is clearly not evident. One is free to reject it."

>
>> 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.
>
> This is a rather broad claim. I am trying to think of an economist who 
> didn't write about these things. Certainly Smith did, and Marx and 
> Ricardo and Mill and Senior and Say and pretty much everybody. Could 
> you give us an example of an economist who doesn't write about these 
> things?
Anyone can cite names. Can you show me a reference to praxeology. Can 
you show me that that one of these authors clearly identified the 
distinctly economic phenomena in the way that Mises did? Frankly, I 
don't think that you know what I am asking because it seems to me that 
you do not know how Mises's view differed from that of the other 
authors. If you had read Kirzner or Mises carefully, you might have a clue.
>
> You may suggest, but I will reply that I have done extensive reading 
> in Austrian economics, including Human Action, The Road to Serfdom, 
> Peter Heyne's The Economic Way of Thinking, and Rothbard and Rockwell 
> and many other minor Austrians. Nothing I have read persuades me, and 
> much repels me. I know Kirzner through secondary sources; I believe 
> Thomas Woods relies on him heavily. But since you posed the question, 
> it is fair to ask if you are familiar with any critiques of the 
> Austrian position?

If I had written  about Austrian economics, all of this reading would be 
useful. But since I am writing only about Mises, only the first item is 
relevant.


If you truly want to have a dialog about Mises's contribution to 
economics, let me suggest that you read the introduction and chapter 1 
and then tell me what you think is wrong.

Pat Gunning