the main problem I have with Hans on indifference is that he seems to let Nozick off the hook. Nozick says that in order to define a good, you've got to have indifference in economics, since a good is defined as that which with regard to all members of the class, we are indifferent between them. to say this in other words, if butter is a good, then we are indifferent between all units of butter. I think that my admittedly coarse analysis succeeds in overturning Nozick, while I think that Hans' admittedly far more sophisticated analysis does not. Also, apart from Nozick, Hans seems to think that if his analysis is correct, then mine must be incorrect. nothing I have seen so far convinces me that we cannot both be right.