To Pat Gunning: On a very basic level, economy as an autonomous 
entity, is detached from other social institutions and realities, 
including ethical norms and political ends. You can take it only so 
far in claiming that market efficiencies (whatever name we use for 
them) will deliver the preferred outcomes. Of course no economist 
would deny that the efficiencies exist and need to be maximized.

You are right to point out the limited objective of Hayek in 
comparing an unplanned market economies with planned socialist-type 
systems. But then to generalize from it as as end in itself is 
problematic. Smith too had the specific purpose of challenging 
mercantilist ideology and practice. But he was more inclined to weave 
into his analysis more universal facts like his acknowledgement of 
the working class's desperate need for subsistence and asymmetry of 
power between them and their employers ( John Medaille's quote in his 
post from WE). In other words, there is a difference between formal 
freedoms and real freedoms. And real freedoms change and evolve with 
time. Sexual division of labor was considered 'natural' at one time, 
but not any more, thus increasing women's  economic freedom. Theories 
that emphasize only the formal freedoms fall short of their 
usefulness in human affairs, I would think.

Fred Foldavary wrote: "A pure free market would not experience 
periodic traffic jams." But it may experience other deficits, such as 
a regressive burden on many segments of the population, Avoiding 
traffic jams by privatizing highways may not be the most optimal 
solution for society.

Sumitra Shah