Ȁȁȅ Partʺ: Economics
or exploit other people’s secondhandism and their susceptibility to intel-
lectual intimidation.Ȇ(Rand provides insights into the craving for prestige
that I could scarcely hope to reproduce here.)
We should beware of relativism about truth. Beyond the game-like
or fame-and-fortune side of academic careers, the truth-and-beauty side
deserves cultivation. Communication is important, even including skillful
communication of knowledge to students and to the broad public.
Above all, I warn against discrediting the valid case for the free society
by misconstruing the market as an entity in its own right that transcends
the mere men and women who trade on it, an entity that makes superior
judgments even about good and bad. Obstacles to understanding the logic
of a market economy are great enough already. A spurious linkage in peo-
ple’s minds between a twisted version of free-marketry and the serious,
valid, and quite different case for the free market can only harm the cause
of freedom. Overreaching boomerangs.
ŞőŒőŞőŚŏőş
Binswanger, Harry, ed.Ļe Ayn Rand Lexicon. New York: New American Library,
ȀȈȇȅ.
Brown, Harry Gunnison. “Two Decades of Decadence in Economic Ļeorizing.”
ȀȈȃȇ. InSome Disturbing Inhibitions and Fallacies in Current Academic Eco-
nomics, pp.ȂȆ–ȅȃ. New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation,ȀȈȄǿ.
Buchanan, James M. “Ļe Metamorphosis of John Gray.”Constitutional Political
Economyȅ, no.Ȃ(ȀȈȈȄ):ȁȈȂ–ȁȈȄ.
Butos, William N., and Roger Koppl. “Big Players and Entrepreneurial Tradi-
tions: How Keynesian Policies May Create a Kaleidic Economy.” Paper for
the Southern Economic Association Meetings, New Orleans,ȀȈȈȄ.
Hayek, F.A.Ļe Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
ȀȈȅǿ.
Heyne, Paul. Review ofĻe Moral Economy, by John P. Powelson. Independent
ReviewȄ(Summerȁǿǿǿ):ȀȂȆ–Ȁȃǿ.
ȆConsider the way Laband and Tollison draw a scarcely veiled contrast between work
at the supposed frontier of the discipline and inferior work, as well as the general tone of
their writing. A whiff appears of “the argument from intimidation,” so identified by Ayn
Rand (BinswangerȀȈȇȅ, pp.Ȃȁ–Ȃȃ).