Pierre Lemieux wrote:

>Yet, there are crazy ideas (defined as ideas that were once thought as 
>completely unrealistic) that become accepted -- e.g., the earth is round, 
>freedom of religion is not disruptive or, say, "the White Pine Tree Act was 
>not strong enough".* Why these and not others? Do we have to resort to 
>information-cacade explanations?

Unfortunately, I can provide relatively little on why _groups_ accept 
certain ideas (e.g., I couldn't tell you why 'American colonists' thought 
freedom of religion was important, but I could tell you why 'Thomas 
Jefferson' thought it was).

The term 'information cascade' is a new one on me.  If by that you mean,
"Intellectuals pick up on an idea, espouse it and clarify it, and the idea 
'trickles down' to non-intellectuals," then I see no other alternative to 
that explanation.

"And while all the good little boys and girls slept, the Invisible Hand went 
from house to house, distributing the surplus wealth created by voluntary 
transactions in a non-hegemonic division-of-labor market ..."
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Reply via email to