Pat Gunning wrote:

>First, John, I was not writing about myself 
>although I was writing about my interpretation.

And I was writing about your interpretation as well.

>  Second, and perhaps most importantly, I don't 
> think that you read the sentences carefully 
> because the topic of your posting does not 
> relate to my meaning or, as I reread them now, to my words.

Could you be more specific about the difference? I don't see it.


>Also the focus of my message was economics. So I 
>meant that economists had not clearly identified 
>interaction among distinctly human actors as 
>distinct from other phenomena. There were 
>philosophers who had done so; but they were not 
>interested in evaluating arguments in favor of or against market intervention.

This is a rather broad claim. I am trying to 
think of an economist who didn't write about 
these things. Certainly Smith did, and Marx and 
Ricardo and Mill and Senior and Say and pretty 
much everybody. Could you give us an example of 
an economist who doesn't write about these things?

>There may also have been poets and artists. I wouldn't know much about them.
>
>The subject matter of economics prior to Mises 
>is discussed by Kirzner in the book "The 
>Economic Point of View," which Sam referred us 
>to earlier. Would I be too assertive to suggest that you read it?

You may suggest, but I will reply that I have 
done extensive reading in Austrian economics, 
including Human Action, The Road to Serfdom, 
Peter Heyne's The Economic Way of Thinking, and 
Rothbard and Rockwell and many other minor 
Austrians. Nothing I have read persuades me, and 
much repels me. I know Kirzner through secondary 
sources; I believe Thomas Woods relies on him 
heavily. But since you posed the question, it is 
fair to ask if you are familiar with any critiques of the Austrian position?


John C. M?daille