There's no chance in the world I'm going to waste time sorting through all these strawmen of your devising. Do you know how easy it is to strawman someone's argument if you read it with zero charity, thus missing the point that's being argued?
I'll address just one of your points here, using it as a representative example, namely the one in your second-last paragraph. You say I contend that neoclassical economists assume we all have a fixed ultimate desire, namely what I call "happiness." But you stop your analysis right when that section of the article goes on to explain that that desire is entirely open-ended, which is what distinguishes classical and neoclassical economics in this context. "Happiness" in the neoclassical case becomes the vacuous (a priori), subjective "utility," a mere placeholder desire that everyone's free to define differently for themselves. Happiness is no longer tied to egoism, but allows for altruism.
As I say in the very next sentence in the article, "Everyone wants to be happy, but you must figure out what makes you happy, and that’s what a free society is for."
Indeed, I made this point in the preceding section:
"Neoclassical economists, however, took for granted a more open-ended conception of utility, which allowed for altruism. What matters to the later economic model isn’t what a person prefers, whether that be the person’s exclusive or inclusive benefit, but the rational way she calculates the most efficient means of achieving her goals. What mattered was economic rationality, not psychological egoism."
So your confusion on this point (with your "Again, what????") is hardly my fault.
You know, going over these uncharitable strawmen of yours is amusing and all, but it's pointless. Can I just ask you something more interesting and substantive?
Do you subscribe to some version of the invisible hand argument? Do you think that the government shouldn't interfere with capitalist competition because that kind of competition is the best way of allocating economic resources? Assuming you don't subscribe to any such libertarian argument, have you written anything against politicians, pundits, and plutocrats who misrepresent economics in promoting that kind of argument?
