Michael, I did indeed write to John M. that �I demand, before I spend time on this, that you accept at least provisionally Mises�s definition of economics.� But the context of the message is important. In the post just prior to this, I had written: �...the reasoning you have criticized in Mises is derived from his goal of studying �economic interaction.�� John M. refused to accept this as a legitimate goal. I demanded that he accept the study of economic interaction at least provisionally before I would waste time. The reason for this is that John, it seemed to me, wanted to evaluate Mises as a philosopher and not as an economist. I did not consider this as a reasonable topic for an economics list and also objected to his use of Mises as his scapegoat for mainstream economics. In relation to my post to Brad Bateman, I demanded, in effect, that John M. write about economics if he wished to discuss Mises with me. You are different. You have not written about philosophy. You have written, in effect, about your desire to expand the traditional interests of economists. You are similar to John M. in the sense that you have started the debate by choosing Mises as your target when, in fact, your target is the economics mainstream. And you are equally subject to the criticism of Mises bashing. But your aim is different. I realized this when I started this thread but have allowed myself to stray from your main theme. I would have been better advised to respond exclusively to your desire to expand the boundaries of economics rather than to prompt a comparison of your goals with those of Mises. So I will stop talking about Mises, although my comments will certainly reflect views that I take to be his, since these are in large measure my own. You claimed that economics is ideologically biased �insofar as the discourse of purposeful action theory is directed at reconciling us to accepting capitalist institutions as the inevitable byproduct of social life.� I take it that by this statement you want to open a debate on the following proposition.� If capitalist institutions help to mold ends, is this not relevant to the evaluation of capitalism as a means for individuals to achieve their ends?� My reaction to this proposition is that it is incomplete. I believe that in order to evaluate capitalism, one must compare it with at least one alternative. The fact that capitalism molds ends seems to me to be relevant only if one can specify some alternative set of institutions that either does not mold ends (assuming that the molding of ends is undesirable per se) or that molds ends that one regards as more desirable on some grounds. So let me ask you to complete the proposition. Which set of institutions do you have in mind? Let me give you a hint about my likely response. After you specify the institutions you have in mind, I am likely to challenge you on their ability to meet utilitarian ends. And once I make this challenge, we are likely to discuss the nature of ends themselves and how they originate. Pat Gunning