Michael, I did indeed write to John M. that �I demand, before I spend   
time on this, that you accept at least provisionally Mises�s definition   
of economics.� But the context of the message is important. In the post   
just prior to this, I had written: �...the reasoning you have criticized   
in Mises is derived from his goal of studying �economic interaction.��   
John M. refused to accept this as a legitimate goal. I demanded that he   
accept the study of economic interaction at least provisionally before I   
would waste time. The reason for this is that John, it seemed to me,   
wanted to evaluate Mises as a philosopher and not as an economist. I did   
not consider this as a reasonable topic for an economics list and also   
objected to his use of Mises as his scapegoat for mainstream economics.   
In relation to my post to Brad Bateman, I demanded, in effect, that John   
M. write about economics if he wished to discuss Mises with me.  
  
You are different. You have not written about philosophy. You have   
written, in effect, about your desire to expand the traditional   
interests of economists. You are similar to John M. in the sense that   
you have started the debate by choosing Mises as your target when, in   
fact, your target is the economics mainstream. And you are equally   
subject to the criticism of Mises bashing. But your aim is different. I   
realized this when I started this thread but have allowed myself to   
stray from your main theme. I would have been better advised to respond   
exclusively to your desire to expand the boundaries of economics rather   
than to prompt a comparison of your goals with those of Mises. So I will   
stop talking about Mises, although my comments will certainly reflect   
views that I take to be his, since these are in large measure my own.  
  
You claimed that economics is ideologically biased �insofar as the   
discourse of purposeful action theory is directed at reconciling us to   
accepting capitalist institutions as the inevitable byproduct of social   
life.�  
  
I take it that by this statement you want to open a debate on the   
following proposition.� If capitalist institutions help to mold ends, is   
this not relevant to the evaluation of capitalism as a means for   
individuals to achieve their ends?�  
  
My reaction to this proposition is that it is incomplete. I believe that   
in order to evaluate capitalism, one must compare it with at least one   
alternative. The fact that capitalism molds ends seems to me to be   
relevant only if one can specify some alternative set of institutions   
that either does not mold ends (assuming that the molding of ends is   
undesirable per se) or that molds ends that one regards as more   
desirable on some grounds. So let me ask you to complete the   
proposition. Which set of institutions do you have in mind?  
  
Let me give you a hint about my likely response. After you specify the   
institutions you have in mind, I am likely to challenge you on their   
ability to meet utilitarian ends. And once I make this challenge, we are   
likely to discuss the nature of ends themselves and how they originate.  
  
  
Pat Gunning