Beyond Supply and Demand By Mark T. Mitchell - January 23, 2013 8 Reading Time: 1 Facebook Twitter Email Print Here is the video of a talk I gave January 21 at Northwood University. The title: “Beyond Supply and Demand: The Moral Foundation of the Free Market.” RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR The Nightstand The Formative Power of Metrics Short The Contemplative Life, Southern Writers, and a Tech Backlash The Nightstand The Cost of Knowing One’s Place The Feed Store Backyard Beekeeping Short Should You Move? The Stump Summoning Jeremiah 8 COMMENTS Dr. Mitchell, You through your writings and through addresses recorded on the video which you have made available and Dr. Don Livingston of the Abbeville Institute are arming me with the reasoning and the arguments necessary to engage in meaningful discussions on the issues of economic and political morality and the role of scale in those discussions. In my Sunday school class last Sunday, we talked about what it meant to live Christianly in the modern world. It was difficult to get the conversation into the issues which you raised although the historical teachings of the Church and the Bible certainly “invite” us to make these issues a part of the discussion about living Christianly. Listening to this lecture and the ensuing Q & A was especially enlightening. Ropke was an unfamiliar name to me until your book and this lecture. When is your book on Immodesty due out? I already have a sense it isn’t necessarily about dress, but moreless addressing the egoism, hubris and haughtiness of our political and economic life together. Thanks for the good work. Keep it up. I hope you get interviewed by Ken Myers on his Mars Hill Audio Journal. Binx, The book on modesty is due out in May (I’m a co-editor). You are right that it has little to do with plunging necklines. Mark Excellent. The accusation of the error of ‘romanticism’ is a valid because it’s an accusation of imprudence due to lack of practical experience. In fact, romanticism is a common error especially among the academic types because they mistake knowledge of universals for knowledge of the particular. And is an error likewise common among aesthetic types because they mistake some accidental poetic loveliness for the practical experience. love the girls, Yes, but all things being equal, perhaps the knowledge of practical experience is not worth a plug drachma without poetic loveliness. D.W. Sabin, Romanticism is not poetic loveliness, but an illusion because the true poetic is intrinsic to the practical. btw, thank you for your reply. I very much appreciate that the writers on Front Porch Republic reply to comments. Comments are closed.