--- Andrew Farrant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
> The person Doug argued with may have had a point (if  
> they did a stack more work)  
  
No. The idea of any step towards intervention  
producing instantanous tyrany is not in the RTS. Hayek  
argued that comprehensive planning and democracy were  
incompatible, but it could take a few generations for  
democratic freedoms to be eliminated entirely. THat's  
his main claim.   
  
> The cartoon version of RTS (especially page 10) is a  
> pretty accurate (albeit rough n' ready) rendition of  
> Hayek's logic in RTS:   
> A rather more nuanced argument can be found in:  
> "When 'socialism' fails, then what?" (Levy, Peart,  
> Farrant). European Journal of Political Economy. 24  
> (1) 2005: 1064-1068.  
  
Well, Andrew already knows that I have a paper in the  
works that shows how the RTS fits in with the rest of  
Hayek's system (and that Hayek is right). I can't  
direct anyone to this paper because it is not an  
official working paper anywhere just yet. But the real  
point of this thread though is not about the RTS  
itself. That was just an example.   
  
The real point of this thread is that criticism  
requires a reasonable degree of understanding. Since  
Andrew and I have both studied the RTS carefully we  
can get in a real discussion. Others who attack  
anyone's work without really knowing it just make alot  
of noise. Uninformed opinions are worthless. Right?  
  
> Was the argument that so upset Doug made in a talk  
> or in comments?  
  
In the talk, not the comments.  
  
Doug Mackenzie