So, what’s the problem with describing the structure of du Toit’s argument by saying “Du Toit is using democratic mysticism [or, bigotry] to justify violence against innocent third parties”? If there are good, established reasons for saying that they are, in fact, innocent, isn’t that an accurate description of what du Toit is in fact doing?

Kennedy,

And aren’t there good, established reasons for saying so? (E.g. that collectivism is false?)

Kennedy,

Well. Aren’t they, in fact, innocent?

I’m not a fan of Galbraith’s, but he and you are spot on about the mathematization of economics.

Penis envy towards the “hard” sciences is an important part of the explanation; I think the professional interests of planning bureaucrats (a common destination, or aspiration, for institutionalized economists) are another; a lot of economists have, after all, a professional interest in justifying their positions as number-compilers, number-crunchers, and number-fudgers to the powers that be.

Personally, I think the best critique of the tendency was actually published several years back, in the form of a parable, in a Calvin and Hobbes strip.

Kennedy,

Isn’t it true that Du Toit is using democratic mysticism (among other things) to justify aggression against innocent dissenters?