> So if a postie delivers letters to an arms manufacturer, s/he must be
> accountable for the consequences (delivered orders, cheques, etc) of
> this action?
John:
No. That's silly. The issue here, though, is a serious one for
radical economists: how and for whose purposes is our work used?
> And, anyway, I'm not sure how this line of argument - even if Ford had
> written on the lines you claim he did - would tell us more about
> whether Freeman is a pluralist in his economics or not. This, you may
> recall, was my original complaint, and I notice you still do not
> address this,
I was just addressing one point at a time. I will be happy to discuss
further Freeman's perspective on pluralism.
Would you like to discuss the idea that "pluralism is about ideas, not
people"? Are there any other pluralists who advance such a one-sided
perspective on pluralism?
Would you like to discuss the claim by Kliman and Freeman that
"rules of engagement" are required by pluralist organizations and
that the IWGVT (International Working Group on Value Theory)
"guidelines" should be held up us as a model for others? I would
be happy to relate examples of how the IWGVT mini-conferences
were _by no means_ a model for other pluralists. Far from it!
Moreover, the "Guidelines" did not further pluralist discussions
at the IWGVT mini-conferences, imo.
Would you like to discuss the scathing critique of _C&C_ in
their "Beyond Talking the Talk" article? What about their
criticism of the _RRPE_? Careful readers of that article will
see for themselves why Kliman and Freeman are not suitable
editors of a scholarly referred journal.
Jerry
|