==================== HES POSTING ==================== I agree with the Bianchi/Perlman distinction between markets and market society. It seems to me that a good part of the political eocnomic thought of the 18th Century is a discussion of just how far and how effective markets can be when extended to newer areas of life. And Locke's _Second Treatise_ is (among other things) an argument as to why land should all be enclosed (not common) and therefore commodified and how labor could justifiablely become a commodity as well. It also seems to me that one of THE most important insights of the _Wealth of Nations_ (or claims, if not correct insight) is how efficient economic production would be if all facets of it were regulated by markets. Were Locke and Smith onto something new? Or were their insights so trivial, that the do not deserve their place in the history of political-economic thought? * * * * * * * * * * * Michael Gibbons Dept. of Government and International Affairs University of South Florida <[log in to unmask]> ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]