I appreciate Samuel Bostaph's courteous tone, which encourages me to ask for
some guidance. He writes that "Mises's concept of
interventionism relies on a theoretical construct of an unimpeded market
process that is not set in a specific historical or institutional context,
as Mason would have it."

Well, yes. That is a central doctrine of Mises, I gather. It is one I do not
understand, it seems so otherworldly, and contrary to the spirit of science
as I have come to understand it. I am ignorant of reading much Mises, except
for his work on the damage done by lengthening the period of production,
with which I am in sympathy. I would welcome any attempts to explain the
rationale of his methodological philosophy, if any Misesian has the patience
to explain it to this reader who has generally found Mises' writing too
opaque to fathom. I do not try to refute or carp at something I do not
understand, but just turn away baffled and seek light elsewhere.

I see two contradictions in what I observe or understand of Mises.

	1. He rejects the use of mathematics in economic analysis, while
also adopting the pure mathematicians' preference for pure reason over
observation and testing. Is this consistent?
	2. Those who write in Mises' name (e.g. the Lew Rockwell group at
Auburn) draw definite - some would say extreme - conclusions about specific
applied public policies in the real world, on which they write most
acerbically and critically. Can one reconcile this with a theory not set in
a specific historical context?

Seeking light, and grateful for input,

Mason Gaffney