Samuel Bostaph wrote: > Let's face it; Friedman has always been a soft-core socialist, as Walter > Block pointed out to all of us at the HOES > meetings in Vancouver a few years > ago. One can certainly make that case, although it seems to me that this means that "socialism" will now cover a much wider spectrum than one might have expected. Does this not lead to an interesting quandary, since Friedman's ideas are certainly embodied in many actual aspects of the economy and many actual policies of the gov't? If Friedman and his policies are socialist, and the gov't and the economy are following those policies, and the economy "works" (define that as you will), therefore socialism works. Socialism is thereby rescued from "the dust-bin of history" and made an essential element of functional economies. The pragmatic argument against socialism ("it just doesn't work") therefore disappears; instead, socialism becomes part of parcel of economies judged to be "successful." I don't know if I want to go there. John C. Medaille