Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,567
Reaction score
41
Location
KS
Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom
by John Stossel

Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom (http://tinyurl.com/y9aelrn). The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.

At the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

I'll explore this tomorrow night on my Fox Business show, 8 p.m. Eastern (rebroadcast Friday at 10 p.m.).

According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent (http://tinyurl.com/y95umnf).

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems to understand the threat: He's worries that "more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise. This is a road that Hayek perfectly described as 'the road to serfdom.'" (Tomorrow I will ask Ryan why, if he understands this, he voted for TARP and the auto bailouts.)

Kurt Vonnegut understood the threat of government-imposed equality.

His short story "Harrison Bergeron" (http://tinyurl.com/23com9) portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General weighs down the strong and agile, masks the faces of the beautiful and distracts the smart.

So far, the Handicapper General is just fantasy. But Vice President Joe Biden did shout at the Democratic National Convention: "Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you." If he meant that we're all equal in rights and before the law, fine. If he meant government shouldn't put barriers in the way of opportunity, great. But statists like Biden usually have more in mind: They want government to make results more equal.

Two actual examples of the lunacy:

When colleges innovated by having students use Kindle e-book readers instead of expensive textbooks, the Justice Department sued them, complaining that the Kindle discriminates against blind students. The department also is suing the Massachusetts prison system because it makes prospective prison guards take a physical test. Since women don't do as well as men on that test, Justice claims the test discriminates against women.

Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute, says statism is becoming the "central organizing power in our economy," and that the battle between free enterprise and statism will shape our futures. He remains optimistic because a recent poll (http://tinyurl.com/ycvsfjv) showed that 70 percent of Americans want free enterprise. I'm less sanguine. In that same poll, 54 percent of Americans said government should exert more control over the economy. Brooks discounts that, claiming people forget their "core values" during crises.

But he asks the right question: Do we want a culture of takers or makers? Ryan and Brooks say most people want "the American idea": freedom and self-responsibility. I fear they want a Mommy State to take care of them. What do you think?

The choice is crucial. If we continue down the Road to Serfdom, our destination will be a poorer society, high unemployment, stagnation and complacency.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
 
My gosh, the man will say anything to pander to an audience...I think Stossel has finally lost it all....

When I read this I couldn't believe that he would actually use Vonnegut to support his points regarding government imposed equality...

Kurt Vonnegut understood the threat of government-imposed equality.

His short story "Harrison Bergeron" (http://tinyurl.com/23com9) portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General weighs down the strong and agile, masks the faces of the beautiful and distracts the smart.
Vonnegut was a socialist, a life long member of the ACLU. This short story satirizes not just mistaken notions of equality (it supports the idea of government equality by satirizing how the opposing side mistakenly portrays equality), it also points out a hypocrisy - that to many people in America the definition of freedom looks to be the greatest good to the smallest number.

Stossel obviously doesn't know his Vonnegut.

I had to look at a the other things in this article as well - how much did Sossell misrepresented things to get his point across...

"Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you." If he meant that we're all equal in rights and before the law, fine. If he meant government shouldn't put barriers in the way of opportunity, great. But statists like Biden usually have more in mind: They want government to make results more equal.

Here is what Biden said in context...

"My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you. My parents taught us to live our faith, and to treasure our families. We learned the dignity of work, and we were told that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough."

That is the entire Biden quote - he obviously is talking about equal opportunity - by the last sentence, 'anyone can make it if they just try hard enough.' There is absolutely nothing statist in that statement.

And how about one of his examples of 'lunacy'.
When colleges innovated by having students use Kindle e-book readers instead of expensive textbooks, the Justice Department sued them, complaining that the Kindle discriminates against blind students.

That is incorrect, DOJ did not sue - National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and American Council of the Blind (ACB)-the two major U.S. organizations that support and advocate in the interests of the blind and visually impaired-along with Darrell Shandrow, an ASU journalism student who is visually handicapped, filed a lawsuit. And, it was unfair to blind students, the use of Kindles in the classroom - there wasn't an alternative for blind students. You need the government to make sure there is equal opportunity for all. ADA is the law...

How handy for Stossell that Vonnegut is dead. Vonnegut could have bagged, tagged and eviscerated Stossell using only half his brain and a broken pencil.
 
Shag - the problem with the Democrats is that they overreach when they get power. Instead of acting as caretaker, they seek to transform America into a socialist Utopia. That wakes up the people who forgot why you never vote the Democrats into power, and then they replace them with the more 'moderate' Republicans.

The problem with the Republicans is that they have no spine, and don't seek to reverse the ratcheting noose that the Democrats cinch up while in power.
 
The problem with the Republicans is that they have no spine, and don't seek to reverse the ratcheting noose that the Democrats cinch up while in power.

Agreed. However, I think we may very well be seeing a move away from that with the rise of the tea party movement...
 
Agreed. However, I think we may very well be seeing a move away from that with the rise of the tea party movement...
I hope you're right. The lefties have been using the 'angry mob' technique for decades and look what they've accomplished. It's clearly effective. It's our turn.
 
My gosh, the man will say anything to pander to an audience...I think Stossel has finally lost it all....

For the sake of efficiency, let's just disregard the statements that you think Stossel has misunderstood. You've taken the opportunity to dismiss Stossel here in an almost textbook way.

"the man will say anything to pander to an audience..."
So you're implying that man shouldn't be taken serious, even he doesn't believe what he's saying, he's simply making an argument designed to "pander" to an audience?

I think Stossel has finally lost it all....
And then you state that he's "lost it." That he should be disregarded because he has presumably lost his embrace of reality or his mental acumen?

Classic Progressive/Leftist response.

Stossel does know his Vonnegut and his synopsis of the story is CORRECT.
Whether everyone interprets the story the "message" of the story the same way is irrelevant.

The Biden quote you take issue with is provided in the article with a question. "If he means this....good. If he means this..... that's bad."

And the Kindle example.... Why deny the entire class access to a potential cost saving, space saving, weight saving efficient measure IN CASE there is a blind student who can not use the technology? In the event of a student with different needs, address them as individuals rather than penalize the collective. You don't handicap the entire class inorder to be "fair" to the one person born with a disability.

But.. after you attacked the author personally, you're next move is predictably to isolate a few specific details and then make the entire argument/discussion about them. The classic move from someone like you, foxpaws, is to now make this a discussion about Vonnegut and HARRISON BERGERON, and NOT about the Road to Serfdom the Progressives like yourself are intent upon putting us on.

Stossel makes his point quite well in that article. And I'm pretty confident that it also can be accompanied by a video (I think he just did a TV show on "The Road to Serfdom" this week).
 
I hope you're right. The lefties have been using the 'angry mob' technique for decades and look what they've accomplished. It's clearly effective. It's our turn.

The difference being that the left's "angry mobs" are artificial rent-a-mobs and everyone (including the politicians) know it. However, the tea parties are genuine and everyone (including the politicians) know it.
 
For the sake of efficiency, let's just disregard the statements that you think Stossel has misunderstood. You've taken the opportunity to dismiss Stossel here in an almost textbook way.

So you're implying that man shouldn't be taken serious, even he doesn't believe what he's saying, he's simply making an argument designed to "pander" to an audience?

And then you state that he's "lost it." That he should be disregarded because he has presumably lost his embrace of reality or his mental acumen?

Classic Progressive/Leftist response.

Stossel does know his Vonnegut and his synopsis of the story is CORRECT.
Whether everyone interprets the story the "message" of the story the same way is irrelevant.

Well, here is an excellent analysis of Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron. If you read any Vonnegut, or know of his political leanings throughout his life, you would know what the story is about. The man won the Carl Sandburg award... he is a socialist, he is for socialized medicine, he thinks we should follow Marx... why would you use one of his works? From his last interview...
Vonnegut votes Democrat, but describes himself as socialist, in the tradition of Carl Sandburg, Eugene Victor Debs and Powers Hapgood. Does he find it troubling that there is no socialist party of note in the US, that historians of the right can claim that the left has demonstrably failed?

“They have socialised medicine in Sweden and Canada, I wish to God we had it,” he says, “there are socialist experiments going on everywhere. In the Communist Manifesto what they demanded was free education and free healthcare. One of the most beneficial social experiments in this country was the GI Bill Of Rights – when we came home we could all go to college for free.”
The Biden quote you take issue with is provided in the article with a question. "If he means this....good. If he means this..... that's bad."

But, he uses that quote to tie Biden with statism... the whole idea of that quote is the opposite of statism. It is misleading.

And the Kindle example.... Why deny the entire class access to a potential cost saving, space saving, weight saving efficient measure IN CASE there is a blind student who can not use the technology? In the event of a student with different needs, address them as individuals rather than penalize the collective. You don't handicap the entire class inorder to be "fair" to the one person born with a disability.
They removed a standard text that had a braille alternative/CD alternative with something that didn't have a 'blind' alternative. It is going backwards. You were denying a group of people access to something they previously had access to. That is why the Kindles were pulled.

But.. after you attacked the author personally, you're next move is predictably to isolate a few specific details and then make the entire argument/discussion about them. The classic move from someone like you, foxpaws, is to now make this a discussion about Vonnegut and HARRISON BERGERON, and NOT about the Road to Serfdom the Progressives like yourself are intent upon putting us on.

I made this article about the validity of Stossel. If he misrepresents his points, then you have to question how valid the rest of the article is. Why would he misrepresent things he didn't need to - why put Vonnegut in this at all? If you know anything about Vonnegut he wouldn't be the one you would quote in an article like this. I do think he is pandering to an audience, I think he is exploiting the Fox viewership, knowing this is exactly what they want to hear. Does the Fox audience really know Vonnegut-probably not, however they 'know of' Vonnegut. Quoting Vonnegut appears to add validity to his point, it 'sounds good'. If he really does understand Vonnegut he is deliberately misleading his audience. Then he is banking on the fact that most people who watch Fox or read his article won't know that tying Hayek and Vonnegut together is ludicrous.

I pulled 3 things that I knew right away were wrong - I adore Vonnegut, I was at Biden's speech, and I actually have been following the Kindle thing because it is challenging Amazon to make a reader that 'reads out loud' and knows voice commands (which they are doing) - a game changer if you are blind, or know someone who is. My niece is blind and is going to college. This is going to be so amazing for her. She can hardly wait.

Stossel makes his point quite well in that article. And I'm pretty confident that it also can be accompanied by a video (I think he just did a TV show on "The Road to Serfdom" this week).

If in a very short article I can pull 3 things just off the top of my head that are wrong or at the least extremely questionable, in my mind it quickly relegates the entire article pretty much to the trash heap...

I will be interested to see his show - I believe it is on Fox... hopefully it will be downloadable at their website.

Oh, and Foss and Shag - the grade school playground 'we are going to ignore foxpaws' little pack you made behind the jungle gym is cute - it also shows where your mental/societal age and capacity really lie... I would guess around 9 years old. And it really doesn't work Foss when you still have me quoted in your signature. So will you leave it in there - because if you take it out it shows that you aren't really ignoring me. I love irony... But, I would love to have combatants that were up to the task, you and shag aren't really much of a challenge, you both think linearly. What one would expect of juveniles.

And since you are always so worried about this Foss - I am not going to be online for the next few days, I wouldn't want you to wonder about why I am not answering you... I know it troubles you.
 
Stossel does know his Vonnegut and his synopsis of the story is CORRECT.

It is not uncommon for proponents of social justice to hold the contradictory position (outside of the realm of theory) of being against collectivism and the tyranny it brings. William Goodwin, the Marquis de Condorcet and George Orwell are but a few examples...
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), better known by his pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist and journalist. His work is marked by keen intelligence and wit, a profound awareness of social injustice, an intense, revolutionary opposition to totalitarianism, a passion for clarity in language and a belief in democratic socialism.
In addition to Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" and Orwell's famous 1984, Rush's song Red Barchetta highlights the dangers of tyranny due to collectivism. Though the drummer and lyricist in Rush, Neil Peart, is a libertarian, not a socialist like Vonnegut or Orwell. The article is an interesting read, especially if you are a Rush fan.

YouTube- Audi - Green Police (2010 Superbowl Ad)

Funny side note, San Francisco actually has a law that you cannot put rinds or similar compostable waste down your garbage disposal. ;)
 
And, just as I said... in classic foxpaws/progressive/leftist style, she'll now shift the focus of the discussion to the minutia of Vonnegut... and not the The Road to Serfdom.

Vonnegut's book is often used as an example by people who don't share Vonnegut's political view. After the author publishes the book, the intention of the author has nothing to do with the impression their work leaves. Stossel mentions the story because it creates a vivid picture that is appropriate and fits in the argument he presents.

You didn't pull out three mistakes, you manufactured three excuses.

YouTube- Stossel on the Road to Serfdom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, back to Hayek, who, by the way, has been scientifically proven to be wrong...

From the November 2006 Scientific American Magazine

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

One of the great challenges of sustainable development is to combine society's desires for economic prosperity and social security. For decades economists and politicians have debated how to reconcile the undoubted power of markets with the reassuring protections of social insurance. America's supply-siders claim that the best way to achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes needed to fund high levels of social insurance would cripple prosperity. Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich August von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be a "road to serfdom," a threat to freedom itself.*

Most of the debate in the U.S. is clouded by vested interests and by ideology. Yet there is by now a rich empirical record to judge these issues scientifically. The evidence may be found by comparing a group of relatively free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social outlays with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social outlays.

Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.
<snip>


There is more at the SA site...

Cal - they were mistakes - not excuses -
 
Why don't you agree Cal?

Hayek said that government spending would lead to "serfdom" or totalitarianism.

It obviously does not, Nordic countries have more stable democracies and governments then we do and more social stability.

Less poverty, debt and crime, more education and more democracy.

The evidence clearly shows Hayek's assertion that government spending leads to totalitarianism is wrong.
 
You're all just a bunch of greedy Rethuglikkkans.

I think I'll take Alan Greenspan's word for it in this case. :rolleyes:
 
You're conclusion is absurd.

The evidence shows that Europe and much of the Western world is on the verge of economic collapse right now because of the unsustainable economic policies of the past century.

You're "scientific" analysis there doesn't examine the complete picture, it appears to take a snapshot at a point that while convenient for your argument.
 
From the CATO institute...
"Hayek is best known for his most widely read work, The Road to Serfdom, which was written to explain to a literate, but nontechnical, readership how the road to political hell is paved with the best intentions. As he made clear, classical liberalism's conflict with central planning was not over the shared goal of enhancing the well-being of the greatest possible number of people but over the way to achieve that goal.

Hayek's thesis in The Road to Serfdom is that one intervention inevitably leads to another. The unintended consequences of each market intervention are economic distortions, which generate further interventions to correct them. That interventionist dynamic leads society down the road to serfdom.

In perhaps the best chapter of The Road to Serfdom, Hayek details "Why the Worst Get on Top" in totalitarian societies. The chapter begins with a quotation from Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hayek then elaborates the Actonian insight.

There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal [in the classical sense] regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civilization."

And from wikipedia...
"For Hayek 'the road to serfdom' inadvertently set upon by central planning, with its dismantling of the free market system, ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom. Hayek’s central thesis is that all forms of collectivism tend towards tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down “the road to serfdom” and reached tyranny. Hayek first argued that democratic legislatures move too slowly to manage a modern industrial economy. Management of socialism would therefore lead to bureaucrats gaining discretionary powers. Disagreement about the practical implementation of any economic plan would invariably necessitate coercion in order for anything to be achieved. Hayek further argued that the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the state to implement an otherwise good idea. Such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the state, and would assist the rise to power of a 'strong man' perceived to be capable of 'getting the job done'. After these developments Hayek argued that the worst get on top of socialist bureaucracies. Those who are good at acquiring and exercising discretionary powers in government are usually the most ruthless and corrupt individuals.

Hayek argued that countries such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had already gone down the "road to serfdom", and that various democratic nations are being led down the same road. In The Road to Serfdom he wrote: 'The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.'"
 
Cal,
They have more democracy - shouldn't they have less according to Hayek?

I can go point by point that I made and show you the numbers Cal - on the barometer that Hayek places, Scandinavia beats the US. Just like this link to The Economist's study of democracy that places the Scandinavian countries in the top 6 spots while the US lags at 18

Hayek needs to viewed much the same as Rand - through the eyes of school boy fantasy. Looks good on paper - but once applied to the real world Hayek quickly falls apart. When you grow up, you have a tendency to look at utopian thought as an interesting study, but realize that it isn't really all that applicable to real life situations.

The evidence shows that Europe and much of the Western world is on the verge of economic collapse right now because of the unsustainable economic policies of the past century.

So, what is flawed here? What do they have in common - not monetary policy, Scandinavia is doing better than the US, even though it spends far more on socialist programs. What they have in common is some form of Democracy - could that be the culprit? Does democracy have a life-span?
 
They have more democracy - shouldn't they have less according to Hayek?

Apparently you haven't read Hayek as you have claimed to..

I can go point by point that I made and show you the numbers Cal - on the barometer that Hayek places,

no, it is a barometer that you place in Hayek's name.

Hayek needs to viewed much the same as Rand - through the eyes of school boy fantasy.

Unfortunately you know nothing of Hayek's writings to credibly make that claim. You just dismiss it and claim to have actually considered it. Excuses and cheap rationalizations are no substitute for honesty and integrity.

Looks good on paper - but once applied to the real world Hayek quickly falls apart.

If you were at all familiar with Hayek you would know how absolutely absurd that sounds. You are not countering Hayek's work but and flawed caricature of it based in ignorance and misrepresentation.
 
Fox: Hayek blah blah blah
Shag: You haven't read Hayek.
Fox: But but but - AYN RAND!!!!!ONE11!!11!!
 
Cal,
They have more democracy - shouldn't they have less according to Hayek?
"More democracy?" Mob rule?
That's not a pure barometer of freedom by any means. To imply such is absurd. Do you really have freedom when one group can vote to have your possessions taken away from you and redistributed amongst them?
Absolutely not. And that's one reason this country was establish as a representative republic and NOT a direct democracy.
Are you really free is more than half of your life's work is ceased by the government?

I can go point by point that I made and show you the numbers Cal - on the barometer that Hayek places, Scandinavia beats the US. Just like this link to The Economist's study of democracy that places the Scandinavian countries in the top 6 spots while the US lags at 18
Your example has nothing to do with what Hayek wrote or spoke about. This indicates you honestly know NOTHING about economics, or you are as dishonest and corrupt as I suspect.

That report by the Economist is absurd. The methodology of the ratings is ridiculous, just as the reports that score our health care system poorly because it's not socialized.

But you like to speak of Europe in glowing terms. Let's really discuss that. Stop using "Scandinavia" as an example. Be specific. Let's discuss a specific country and not a region.

Hayek needs to viewed much the same as Rand - through the eyes of school boy fantasy.
No, Hayek needs to be viewed much the same way as Keynes... as economists, not philosophers...

Looks good on paper - but once applied to the real world Hayek quickly falls apart.
No your thinking of Keynes.
And Marx.

So, what is flawed here? What do they have in common - not monetary policy, Scandinavia is doing better than the US, even though it spends far more on socialist programs. What they have in common is some form of Democracy - could that be the culprit? Does democracy have a life-span?
Again, if you want to muddy the waters and confuse the subject at least be specific.
Name a country, not a region.
I'm not going to compare entertain comparing a country with a region, it's
a waste of time.

But we'll also have to note- the United States HAS NOT embraced Hayek's economic theories for the past century. There have been brilliant moments of economic success that have seen his theory put into practice, but for the better part of the last century, we've seen economic policy more closely resembling Keynes. The consequences can be felt right now.
 
Again, if you want to muddy the waters and confuse the subject at least be specific.
Name a country, not a region.
I'm not going to compare entertain comparing a country with a region, it's
a waste of time.

But we'll also have to note- the United States HAS NOT embraced Hayek's economic theories for the past century. There have been brilliant moments of economic success that have seen his theory put into practice, but for the better part of the last century, we've seen economic policy more closely resembling Keynes. The consequences can be felt right now.

So, needless to say there is way more of you than me... smile... I can't possibly keep up with the bombardment... sorry... so, pick and choose -what would you like to really discuss...

Norway, I choose Norway... far away from Hayek... the US is far closer to Hayek than Norway - but chose another country other than the US that you believe is closer to Hayek if you have one Cal.
 
So, needless to say there is way more of you than me... smile... I can't possibly keep up with the bombardment... sorry... so, pick and choose -what would you like to really discuss...

Norway, I choose Norway... far away from Hayek... the US is far closer to Hayek than Norway - but chose another country other than the US that you believe is closer to Hayek if you have one Cal.
Boo-freaking-hoo. The ad nauseum queen plays victim. Let me see...

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory
 
Norway, I choose Norway... far away from Hayek... the US is far closer to Hayek than Norway - but chose another country other than the US that you believe is closer to Hayek if you have one Cal.

The Road To Serfdom was originally written for a British audience and with Britain primarily in mind. I thought you would know that since you have "read" the book...
 
No, Hayek needs to be viewed much the same way as Keynes... as economists, not philosophers...

Actually, Hayek had a foot in both spheres. However, unlike most intellectuals/elites (including Keynes) he did not rely solely on the type of knowledge that could be articulated but looked to glean wisdom from experience; specifically in traditions and history. He also did not have an over inflated view of his own intellect or of human nature generally. These factors set him apart from the elites because his ideas were not rooted in postulations aimed at rationalizing unrealistic ideals, but in looking at human nature as it is, treating it as a constant (again, unlike most intellectuals), and honestly trying to find the best economic and governing system given those limitations.

That is why Hayek's work arguable started an intellectual counter-revolution that extends through to today and was exemplified in many ways by the Reagan years.

Also, Fox, comparing Rand to Hayek is to misrepresent both. Rand was ultimately an idealist (like most intellectuals), Hayek was pragmatic; a realist. To compare the two as you have done shows either an ignorance of both or a willful misrepresentation of both.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top