Well, I was not going to get into this, but as a participant  
in the EJPE special issue, and given that this has gotten  
pretty perfervid, I think I will.  
  
So, I am in a more intermediate position.  To Andrew:  
I have not read "Muddle in the Middle," or whatever its  
title is, but I know that Hayek's views changed over time,  
and that he became less inclined to support "middle  
of the road" policies as he got older.  So, I would be  
cautious about imputing arguments to RTS based on  
something found in something Hayek wrote about 40  
years later.  His views may simply have changed.  
  
Regarding the "slippery slope" argument, I think the  
stronger versions of it appear in the comic book versions,  
for better or worse, the versions more people saw than others.  
In the RTS itself the closest articulation of it comes in his  
discussion of Germany, which was the main focus of the book.  
There he does seem to suggest that the social democratic  
policies of the Weimar Republic, and that tradition dating  
back to Bismarck, and the state planning during World War I  
with the nationalistic attitudes of that period, paved the way  
for the takeover by Hitler.  
  
However, a careful reading of RTS also makes it clear that  
he did at that time support a variety of "middle way" programs,  
including national health insurance.   Much to the annoyance of  
some modern Misesians (and this is ironic, given that this  
thread is labeled "Bashing Mises"), Hayek was not a pure  
anarcho-capitalist libertarian.  In RTS he has quite a long list  
of government activities that he supported, which I note in  
full in my piece in the EJPE special issue.   I even raise the  
issue of "was he a closet social democrat?" while concluding  
that he was not, despite his support of some social safety net  
programs and some other programs of government activity.  
  
I do in my piece note that he made quite a few incorrect predictions  
about the future of the world economy in RTS.  But the "slippery slope"  
charge is exaggerated and involves ignoring things that he clearly  
wrote in the RTS, while pushing too hard on some others.  
  
BTW, aside to Pete Boettke: Best you try not to push an argument  
on whether anybody "has the goods" on Keynes.  You will probably  
just end up in some deep doo doo if you push that one too hard.  
  
Barkley Rosser