----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Bogdan, I guess that I misunderstood you and it is possible that I will do so again. Anyway, because its summer and I have a few extra minutes, I will try to answer your question. You might also consider asking it on the Hayek list, where there is probably a greater proportion of political philosophers than there are on this list. I think that the main reason why economic arguments are now brought to bear on political philosophy is that economics begins with the demonstration that under certain _conditions_, individuals acting in their own interest will benefit the interest of others, as those others define it. The exceptions are certain cases of external effects, public goods, and the collusive monopoly. Two of those conditions are private property rights and freedom of enterprise. Neither of these conditions is unambiguous. However, the fact that the vast majority of experts in the field of economics accept this idea means that for those who care about whether people serve each others interests, there is a strong case for establishing institutions that promote these two \"liberal\" conditions. Note that, for the most part, economics developed _after_ Locke\'s writings. Thus, it is not surprising that those who follow Locke would pay less attention to economics. I don\'t know whether the argument you attribute to Hayek is an economic one or not. It seems to me that he is saying that people who have their lives planned for them will not develop the ability to plan for themselves, just as a child who is given a shoe-tying servant for life will never develop the ability to tie her shoes. Hayek seems to regard the ability to plan for oneself as a desirable characteristic of individuals in society. I am not sure that this has much to do with economics, however. Pat Gunning American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]