--- Andrew Farrant <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The person Doug argued with may have had a point (if > they did a stack more work) No. The idea of any step towards intervention producing instantanous tyrany is not in the RTS. Hayek argued that comprehensive planning and democracy were incompatible, but it could take a few generations for democratic freedoms to be eliminated entirely. THat's his main claim. > The cartoon version of RTS (especially page 10) is a > pretty accurate (albeit rough n' ready) rendition of > Hayek's logic in RTS: > A rather more nuanced argument can be found in: > "When 'socialism' fails, then what?" (Levy, Peart, > Farrant). European Journal of Political Economy. 24 > (1) 2005: 1064-1068. Well, Andrew already knows that I have a paper in the works that shows how the RTS fits in with the rest of Hayek's system (and that Hayek is right). I can't direct anyone to this paper because it is not an official working paper anywhere just yet. But the real point of this thread though is not about the RTS itself. That was just an example. The real point of this thread is that criticism requires a reasonable degree of understanding. Since Andrew and I have both studied the RTS carefully we can get in a real discussion. Others who attack anyone's work without really knowing it just make alot of noise. Uninformed opinions are worthless. Right? > Was the argument that so upset Doug made in a talk > or in comments? In the talk, not the comments. Doug Mackenzie