====================== HES POSTING ====================== Regarding Robin Neill's first point in today's posting: The difference between the history of a nation state and the history of economics is this. The NATION STATE refers to a particular form of political organization -- a particular structure of rights, in the broadest sense. ECONOMICS refers to a social-intellectual interaction among distinctly human actors. The rise of the nation state and the progress of economics are two distinctly different ideas. To see this, we need to ask: nation state as opposed to what? economics as opposed to what? As an historian, one aims to explain "observable facts" in terms of the perceptions and understandings of the individuals who are deemed relevant to those facts. In this sense, the history of each is similar. But I think it is obvious that the "observable facts" should be placed in different classes. Regarding the second point: "A theory has application to all items of a certain class or kind [q = f(p) [cet. par.], for any individual consumer.], without reference to a particular time in history. (Ah! You see the point.). A thesis has application to only one set of events in some particular time and place." Notice that Neill uses the modifier "a" before the term "theory (or thesis)." One who was familiar with Mises's THEORY AND HISTORY would not use the term "theory" in this way. Theory means a way of organizing the "observable facts" by referring to the perceptions and understandings of the distinctly human beings whose choices played a causal role in their existence. Time is a necessary part of theory, defined in this sense. And, good grief, what is a "Whig view" of how history is (or ought to be) done? Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]