----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Actually, that was not a question. I only made a remark in order to  
make clear that I'm not familiar with other accounts of economic  
topics except the Austrian School of Economics' account. I also  
specified that Mises and Hayek were modern liberals in the  
'European' sense of the term because I knew that in U.S. this word  
had a rather different meaning, which is closely related to what  
European thinkers understood by 'socialism'. However, after I had  
read your e-mail I realized that there is in fact one problem about  
modern liberalism I want to talk about. It is rather a question in the  
field of history of mentalities.   
 
It seems to me that the classical liberal account of political  
philosophy pays little attention to problems concerning economy.  
To give one example, Locke is arguing for tolerance by bringing  
arguments from the field of moral theory. In his "Second Treatise",  
too, he is speaking of "natural rights", which are possesed by every  
human being and which could not be transfered to someone else. I  
think that this is a moral account of individual freedom. On the  
contrary, today it seems rather compulsory to bring into attention  
economic problems when one is trying to justify individual freedom.  
At least, this insistence on topics related to economics is easily  
seen in the works of Mises and Hayek. (It's true that in his 'Road to  
Serfdom' Hayek argues that the moral condition of man will be  
depreciated in a planned society. But the starting point of this  
argument is an economic one. He asserts that in a planned society  
the individual will be more dependent on the state, so it will be very  
difficult for him to take atittude against it).   
 
I would like to know if you share this view and, if you do, if you can  
give an explanation of this fact.   
 
Thank you, 
Bogdan Rabanca 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]