Apparently, the moderator is more tolerant that I expected.   
  
[It seems to me that as long as you stay on the topic of Mises and discuss  
his role in the history of economic thought, you are well within the bounds of   
the history of economics.  If you feel you are straying, please remember that   
you can self-censor.  To be clear: you do not have to reply to every message or   
get the last word in.  While I'm here, let's remember that civility also matters. Yours in
moderation, HB]
  
  
So, OK, I have no trouble defending Mises with words and arguments. So long as you don't
bombard me with statements like "this has been dealt with in modern philosophy and is
regarded nowadays as trivial," I stand engaged.
  
>From your remarks, I take it that you agree with me that Mises   
attempted to provide epistemological foundations for economics and that   
his work is best studied from this perspective (rather than as a   
representative of some particular branch of economics -- e.g, Austrian   
economics, liberal economics, libertarian economics, or some other   
economics that most people would regard as value-oriented). If so, we   
can begin with a discussion of what economics is about, as Mises   
conceives it and as it was understood (if only partly so) by the older   
economists -- e.g., classical economists like Adam Smith. Roughly, but   
not exactly, speaking, I have in mind such things as self interest, the   
invisible hand, specialization, competition, and social utility.  
  
I maintain that the subject matter of economics so conceived is economic   
interaction -- how people act under the conditions of a market economy --   
private property rights, free enterprise, and the use of money. (It is   
also about how people act when these conditions are only partly present   
and when some sort of government policy alters the conditions that would   
otherwise be present. But the study of economic interaction under these   
conditions comes later. The starting point is the study of economic   
interaction, as defined.) So the first point we must establish is   
whether you agree that the study of this subject is worthwhile.  
  
If we can agree on this, we can go on to deal with the issue of the   
meaning of action and of how to build an epistemological basis of   
studying it.  
  
Pat Gunning