Peter Harzem in an interesting posting that plumps for the support of CM,
even in the face of the "reality" of the market, writes:

>...  there are some things that should be made available to the populus in
>general regardless of cost to the individual.  There has not been a society
>where the answer to this question was an unqualified 'no.' (Even the Von
>Mises people will admit some of this, albeit very sparingly.) The problem
>lies not in that, but in the question of what should be included amongst
>the goods that should be made available to all or most citizens, regardless
>of true cost...

Apart from agreeing wholeheartedly with Peter Harzem's brief, I think
the two of us have strong support from a great number of economists and
sociologists.  To begin with, the Austrian school of Menger and von Mises
were all addicted not only to their specialities but also to CM.  Even qua
Austrian school they stood not against the support of special agendas in
the face of the market; rather, they taught that operation of the market
place involved the satisfaction of the needs of others in order to satisfy
the one's.

A system that forced the market to coddle CM would be called by more
"conservative" thinkers a "teleocratic "system--a command system, one
might also term it.  With the weight of convention running in favor of CM,
I personally would rather see its problem handled by laissez-passer types
like von Mises than the more elitist ones like, say, Oakeshott.

Denis Fodor                             Internet:[log in to unmask]