----------------- 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]