[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So, Greg, are you saying that John Locke, who many see as the > founder of classical liberalism and was clearly an important > intellectual predecessor of Adam Smith, didn't posit in the > "state of nature" the existence of a generally-accepted > morality, in which "all men may be restrained from invading > others' rights" (SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT, ch. 2), including > private property rights (ch. 5)? or are you saying that he was a > handler or a hack? or is it that the "state of nature" wasn't > natural? An innocent question: does the 'institutionalist' view (your view?) preclude the idea that there is some kind of lawfulness about the way the economy evolves which is presumably susceptible to some kind of theoretical explanation, including a possibility of predicting developments by virtue of such a theory(ies)? M.S., Seeker of Truth ==================================================== Max B. Sawicky 202-775-8810 (voice) Economic Policy Institute 202-775-0819 (fax) 1660 L Street, NW [EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036
