Mason, once again you try to put a political spin on my comments.

 From Wikipedia: Anti-statism 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-statism>is opposition to state 
intervention into personal, social or economic affairs. Anti-statist 
views may reject the state completely as well as rulership in general 
(e.g. anarchism), they may wish to reduce the size and scope of the 
state to a minimum (e.g. minarchism), or they may advocate a 
stateless society as a distant goal (e.g. autonomism).

Mason Gaffney wrote:
>Pat Gunning writes:
>
>I wrote
>nothing that even implies anti-statism. Snip.
>
>.. government
>funding of universities and bureaucracy leads to standard setting and
>teaching that is in the interests of the bureaucrats.
>
>Snip
>Government funding over any length of time always leads to
>bureaucracy snip
>
>  Legislators
>..
>tend to favor more spending on just about everything. Snip
>
>By interlarding your prose with such shibboleths of anti-statism you do
>create an impression of being James Buchanan.
>However, you are the expert on what you are, so if you will say you are
>pro-statist, or even neutral, I will have to believe you, and just comment
>that I find your prose see-sawing and digressive.

I you interpret my brief reference to accepted theories and facts 
about bureaucracy and government, and logical extensions of those 
theories and facts, as being anti-statist; the person inserting 
politics into the discussion is you, not me.



>Pat goes on:
>
>  people in business tend to
>earn more than those in other fields, snip
>
>Mason here: "business" needs defining; so does the word "earn". Some
>businesses and incomes are productive; some are predatory.  Some are
>resource-using; some are labor-intensive. Some are honest; some are not. The
>fortune that endowed Brown U, for example, came from slave-trading. Many
>fortunes came from lobbying and bribing for land grants during "the great
>barbecue". To conflate returns to honest labor with what Carver called
>"findings and stealings" is to slip in a basic confusion that is central to
>much anti-statist oratory.
>
>However, I'd welcome any clarification of your position

Apparently you don't like people who are dishonest, who slave-trade, 
and who make money by using their raw might, political power, or 
ability to lobby or bribe. I was not discussing any of this. That 
part of my post was about two things: (1) why standard setters choose 
particular standards over others and (2) why teachers tend to favor 
textbooks that make it easier to grade students. Apparently, you saw 
the word "business" and this set you off.

What needs explanation, I believe, is your reaction to the post.

Pat Gunning