John Medaille wrote:  
>  
> I do think that it is important, as a matter of history, to get Mises   
> right. Mises, far from being "heterodox," represents, in my opinion,   
> the purest form of neoclassical orthodoxy, sort of an orthodoxy on   
> steroids. After all, the man who accused his Mount Pellerian Society   
> colleagues of being "a bunch of socialists" deserves some points for   
> purity, if not for coherence. To understand Mises is to understand   
> more than Mises; it is to understand more than Mises; it is to   
> understand a whole set of justifications and rationalizations that are   
> elsewhere implicit in neoclassicism but in Mises are explicit. For   
> this, Mises deserves credit.  
  
  
And here, I think, is the problem underlying this whole discussion.    
John's example of Mises's "orthodoxy" points directly to his ideological   
position/political conclusions, rather than anything about the   
substantive content of his approach to economics, theoretical or   
methodological.  To assume that "neoclassical orthodoxy" = "defense of   
free enterprise" is to misread both the history of our discipline and   
Mises's ideas, not to mention that of the Austrian school more generally.   
  
Whether Mises was heterodox or not is a fascinating question, but the   
answer to it is not to be found in what Mises had to say about the most   
desirable political order.  After all, there are plenty of neoclassical   
economists who have, and do, believe that the state should play a   
significant role in economic interaction.  And, I would argue, a group   
of more heterodox economists who are radical liberals (i.e., the modern   
Austrian school). The answer to Mises's status is, I think, to be found   
in a much more careful study of our discipline, both in the ideas of   
individuals and the broader historical contexts in which they operated.  
  
Claiming Mises was an example of neoclassical orthodoxy on steroids   
because of his radical liberalism is, I would argue, in error both   
historically and theoretically.  That John has made that argument   
explicitly does provide some justification for Pat Gunning's complaints   
throughout this thread.  
  
And, John, the correct spelling is "Mont Pelerin Society."  
  
Steve Horwitz