|
From Friedrich Hayek's"The Constitution of Liberty"
What is freedom
“In this sense “freedom” refers solely to a relation of men to other men, and the only infringement on it is coercion by men. This means, in particular, that the range of physical possibilities from which a person can choose at a given moment has no direct relevance to freedom. The rock climber on a difficult pitch who sees only one way out to save his life is unquestionably free, though we would hardly say he has any choice. Also, most people will still have enough feeling for the original meaning of the word “free” to see that if the same climber were to fall into a crevasse and were unable to get out of it, he could only figuratively be called “unfree,” and that to speak of him as being “deprived of liberty” or of being “held captive” is to use those terms in a sense different from that in which they apply to social relations.
The question of how many courses of action are open to a person is, of course, very important. But it is a different question from that of how far in acting he can follow his own plans and intentions, to what extent the pattern of his conduct is of his own design, directed toward ends for which he has been persistently striving rather than toward necessities created by others in order to make him do what they want. Whether he is free or not does not depend on the range of choice but on whether he can expect to shape his course of action in accordance with his present intentions, or whether somebody else has power to manipulate the conditions as to make him act according to that person’s will rather than his own. Freedom thus presupposes that the individual has some assured private sphere, that there is some set of circumstances in his environment with which others cannot interfere.”
“The first meaning of “freedom” with which we must contrast our own use of the term is one generally recognized as distinct. It is what is commonly called “political freedom,” the participation of men in the choice of their government, in the process of legislation, and in the control of administration. It derives from an application of our concept to groups of men as a whole which games them a sort of collective liberty. But a free people in this sense is not necessarily a people of free men; nor need one share in this collective freedom to be free as an individual. It can scarcely be contended that the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, or resident aliens in the United States, or persons too young to be entitled to vote do not enjoy full personal liberty because they do not share in political liberty.”
Not everyone will agree liberty is a good thing despite evidence that they benefit from it
“If there is to be any clarity in the discussion of liberty, its definition must not depend upon whether or not everybody that regards this kind of liberty as a good thing. It is very probably that there are people who do not value the liberty with which we are concerned, who cannot see that they derive great benefits from it, and who will be ready to give it up to gain other advantages; it may even be true that the necessity to act according to one’s own plans and decisions may be felt by them to be more of a burden than an advantage.”
Freedom of country =/= Freedom of individual but the reverse is true.
“But though the concept of national freedom is analogous of that of the individual freedom, it is not the same”
“Much of our occasional impetuous desire to smash the whole entangling machinery of civilization is due to this inability of man to understand what he is doing.”
We alone cannot and have not created new ideas
“Most of the advantages of social life, especially in its more advanced forms which we call “civilization,” rest on the fact that the individual benefits from more knowledge than he is aware of. It might be said that civilization begins when the individual in the pursuit of his ends can make use of more knowledge than he has himself acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess.”
Man did not create civilization, nor can he change it as he pleases
“The misleading effect of the usual approach stands out clearly if we examine the significance of the assertion that man has created his civilization and that he therefore can also change its institutions as he pleases. This assertion would be justified only if man had deliberately created civilization in full understanding of what he was doing or if he at least clearly knew how it was being maintained. In a sense it is true, of course, that man has made his civilization. It is the product of his actions, or rather, of the action of a few hundred generations. This does not mean, however, that civilization is the product of human design, or even that man knows what its functioning or continued existence depends upon.
The whole conception of man already endowed with a mind capable of conceiving the civilization setting out to create it is fundamentally false. Man did not simply impose upon the world a pattern created by his mind. His mind is itself a system that constantly changes as a result of his endeavor to adapt himself to his surroundings. It would be an error to believe that, to achieve a higher civilization, we have merely put into effect the ideas now guiding us. If we are to advance, we must leave room for a continuous revision of our present conceptions and ideals which will be necessitated by further experience. We are as little able to conceive what civilization will be, or can be, five hundred or even fifty years hence as our medieval forefathers or even our grandparents were able to foresee our manner of life today.
The conception of man deliberately building its civilization stems from an erroneous intellectualism that regards human reason as something standing outside nature and poasses of knowledge and reasoning capacity independent of experience. But the growth of the human mind is part of the growth of civilization; it is the state of civilization at any given moment that determines the scope and possibilities of human ends and values. The mind can never foresee its own advance. Though we must always strive for the achievement of our present aims, we must also leave room for new experiences and future events to decide which of these aims will be achieved.
It may be an exaggeration to assert, as a modern anthropologist has done, that “it is not man who controls culture but the other way around”;l but it is useful to be reminded by him that “it is only our profound and comprehensive ignorance of the nature of culture that makes it possible for us to believe that we direct and control it.” He suggests at least an important corrective to the intellectualist conception. His reminder will help us achieve a truer image of the incessant interaction between our conscious striving for what our intellect pictures as achievable and the operations of the institutions, traditions, and habits which jointly often produce something very different from what we have aimed at.”
“It is the cases that never come before the courts, not those that do, that are the measure of the certainty of the law.”
Hayek has become an idol of mine. I don't worship him, but he's an influence on me as a person, and in particular, his views on liberty. Not only does he understand how important liberty is, but I think he's got the best description of it simply because it's that perfect mix between being defined well enough to be applied without being too specific. This is great because it allows for more room of discussion.
What I personally believe that Hayek is attempting to convey is that yes, freedom is good, but it's not desired by everybody nor is it the common definition that people see as freedom. Not being able to do WHATEVER you want is not freedom because every choice needs moderation and with that, limitations. The basic principle of Hayek's liberty is not using any form of coercion to accomplish your task. If you have a task that requires the effort of others, then the task is no longer under singular ownership, and you must accept that if you want to continue accomplishing your goal.
A few counter arguments that I believe will come up:
What if a community wants to be homophobic, racist, or generally lacking empathy for people with a certain attribute?
Hayek himself says that liberty will have negative consequences - but they won't last forever, at least as being negative. I do not condone homophobia, racism, or generalizing of any sort - But I cannot control a person's thoughts. If homophobia is going to be a general principle in a society because of the overwhelming community being in favor it, forcing them to no do that is not going to fix it. Hayek actually explains later in Road to Serfdom how throughout history, EVERY group that has been coerced in any capacity has ALWAYS rebelled, or a rebellion has risen because of it. Therefore, if things like racism and homophobia exist in a community, there will come a time where this idea will either be stamped out completely, or accepted as a norm for people. Either of these outcomes will not be controlled by a, or one person - Instead, they will be the products of chaotic cooperation of society. TL;DR - It will work itself out, and if a community desires that, who are we to stop them? Hate is bad, but forcing people to do something is much worse.
Ok... if that's the case, doesn't that mean these communities who are racist or homophobic are coercing people into not having rights?
Yes, but again, are we any better off by preventing one group's liberty to assure another's? Again, I disagree with homophobia, but the history of back lashes from restricting the liberty of a group has been ugly, even when it's favor for a group or minority in a society that is being treated like shit. We're dealing with the back lash of homophobia right now, and it's ugly. But if you think it's bad right now, think how bad it would be if it was the opposite - especially in the United States, the apparent capital country of Christianity.
So your answer to this question is to sit around and wait?
That's the answer I'm going to use for my life. I care about my friends who are homosexual, and I care about my friends who are a minority race in the US, but I am only one man. If I'm going to help amend this situation, I believe it's more important to show people that want to coerce people into a decision regardless of it's instant positive effects on a group of people, that they're not better than the opposition they're fighting. How is it logical to force one group of people to do one thing so you can grant others freedom?
I'm confused now...what exactly are you getting at here? Don't be racist or homophobic? Or don't be either unless you can't help it? Don't fight for people's rights?
You should fight for another's right to be a human being, and if you think you should be marching in parades or raising a flag to help them, then so bet it. Hayek's concepts of liberty support any action as long as you're not forcing another to do something. If you believe that helps, then more power to you - But be sure that in your actions, even if you're fighting for the purest of causes, you are not also stepping on the liberty of another. Disagreeing is one thing, but you cannot stamp out an attitude or opinion simply by making a law because you have to change the ideals and concepts of people who have been propagating these thoughts for hundreds to thousands of years. Making a law isn't going to solve the problem - but helping people understand that over time, even the smallest writing or kind word can make the biggest difference is a good start for one person.
The greatest developments in society were not because of one man or woman who said one thing. The idols everyone worships had idols they worshiped, and those idols had idols. If you want to change the world, you have to understand that change takes time. It could be centuries before we see equal rights for everybody, or be able to embody the ideals of Hayek's liberty. Hell, it may be never. But the important thing is that each action you make, even as one person, does make a big difference in the long run even if you don't see evidence of it in the instant moment.
Remember that like you, people have a nature to themselves - And to question the nature of a man is to question his very existence because you are asking whether or not the memories, thoughts, knowledge, beliefs and all other encompassing factors about him actually exist. If you believe you know better for someone else, take a step back, and remember how long it has taken them to become who they are, and remember they need their liberty as much as you do.
 
|
martin luther king jr agrees
|
|
|
On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher.
|
On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher.
yes, i would agree,
but this concept of freedom just sounds like a moral cop-out to me
|
On February 10 2014 05:30 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. yes, i would agree, but this concept of freedom just sounds like a moral cop-out to me
In what way is it a moral cop out? This concept of freedom has a desire for people to follow their beliefs, but with that respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of your own. In order for this to work, we can't go around automatically restricting the beliefs of others especially larger populations because they would reject the idea out right. Instead of forcing people into these beliefs, we have to understand that it took HUNDREDS of years for people to be who they are based on the foundations of others. It's not as simple as saying "it's immoral to be racist" because you're talking about hundreds even thousands of years of history where the opposite has been taught.
I fail to see how in any way that's a moral cop out, and if anything, it promotes the morals of one's own kind. The part you haven't read about is that in order for society to progress, ideals must be tested. If we demand that some ideals never be tested, or that people are forced to make the right decision, then some where down the line someone is going to understand that coercion, and start a rebellion. Better causes than Martin Luther Kings have gone down in flames because of attempts of coercion in order to facilitate a state of prosperity where everyone is making the right decision.
Also, morals in themselves are only relative to societies. There are communities that have killed people for stealing, and still societies today that practice cutting people's hands off. It sounds barbaric, but just like one person, you can't change an entire community or society, especially through force. You can be against people's beliefs, but the only way to change them is by changing the belief which again, takes more time and force than one human being can produce - But that doesn't mean you can't donate your own power to the force that evolves through time that is attempting to stop whatever belief it is you're opposing.
|
On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher.
I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale.
In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany.
it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals.
|
On February 10 2014 03:56 Smurfett3 wrote:
martin luther king jr agrees
I think if Mr. King new the macro view, yes, but I think he would have thought of Hayek as a bigot. Hayek was a rich white middle class male much like myself. As you can see by a few replies, people see Hayek as promoting racism or bigotry - but the truth of the matter is that in order to truly give someone freedom, you must change the society in which they live - and not force them to make a decision is correct.
This isn't to say that Mr. King was wrong in any sense because he was a huge stepping stone in attempting to grant liberty to every person regardless of their race or belief. That being said, we're talking about a man who lived in the 60's when people were starting to get anxious about the race issue among others. I don't think Mr. King would have been happy because Hayek's words to suggest that racism should continue unharmed, but only because the people who hold those beliefs are as human as the people they're racist against. His ideas and solutions are extremely long term and give no real instant solution except that you should only do what you believe as long as you do not interfere with the liberty of another.
The message here is that the long term effect is always more important. If you can't predict it, then don't worry about it. Work with what you have, but careful where you tread for many ideals in our modern times, much like times before this, have hypocritical ideas. Where peace is promoted, war may lay underneath. Where clarity is advocated, deception may be it's shadow. If it forces someone into doing something they don't want to do, then maybe it should be re-considered.
|
On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals.
His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist.
As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much.
|
On February 10 2014 07:41 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 05:30 Paljas wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. yes, i would agree, but this concept of freedom just sounds like a moral cop-out to me In what way is it a moral cop out? This concept of freedom has a desire for people to follow their beliefs, but with that respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of your own. In order for this to work, we can't go around automatically restricting the beliefs of others especially larger populations because they would reject the idea out right. Instead of forcing people into these beliefs, we have to understand that it took HUNDREDS of years for people to be who they are based on the foundations of others. It's not as simple as saying "it's immoral to be racist" because you're talking about hundreds even thousands of years of history where the opposite has been taught. I fail to see how in any way that's a moral cop out, and if anything, it promotes the morals of one's own kind. The part you haven't read about is that in order for society to progress, ideals must be tested. If we demand that some ideals never be tested, or that people are forced to make the right decision, then some where down the line someone is going to understand that coercion, and start a rebellion. Better causes than Martin Luther Kings have gone down in flames because of attempts of coercion in order to facilitate a state of prosperity where everyone is making the right decision. Also, morals in themselves are only relative to societies. There are communities that have killed people for stealing, and still societies today that practice cutting people's hands off. It sounds barbaric, but just like one person, you can't change an entire community or society, especially through force. You can be against people's beliefs, but the only way to change them is by changing the belief which again, takes more time and force than one human being can produce - But that doesn't mean you can't donate your own power to the force that evolves through time that is attempting to stop whatever belief it is you're opposing.
see, this concept of freedom just doesnt work in a modern society.
anti-discrimination laws are limiting the freedom of the employer, but there are very good reasons why we have them.
there are plenty of other cases were this is the case and these kind of laws seem to work fine most of the time.
and its a moral cop-out, because you can use this concept of freedom to deny any kind of resposibility for pretty much anything and hide behind the "it takes time" argument instead. in some cases, it does indeed take time. in other cases however, waiting isnt the right choice.
the main reason why i dislike hayek are his thoughts on economics though, a la "Inequality is very pleasant" (yeah, i ripped that quote out of the context) . in the end, it boils down to me having a fundamentally differnt view on things like freedom, justice and humans in general.
btw, your blog was pretty good, i enjoyed reading it
|
On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much.
I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy.
I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy.
|
On February 10 2014 11:26 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much. I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy. I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy.
I agree that not everything is quantifiable but Hayek is not the only economist who says that, and more importantly, it's not all he says. He says a whole bunch of other shit that's not true which explains why you somehow believe that the free market "controls itself" despite the fact that it doesn't.
The market doesn't control itself. It can, in terms of numbers, be a functional wild cycle of ups and down, but not in a way that humans are willing to accept for a variety of social, cultural and political reasons. So you're allowed to like the mythical idea that the free market is a beast that tames itself despite the fact that the idea has proven many times to be unworkable, but let's not pretend like Hayek was great because his work of fiction seems eloquent.
"It'll figure itself out".
|
On February 10 2014 09:30 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 07:41 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:30 Paljas wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. yes, i would agree, but this concept of freedom just sounds like a moral cop-out to me In what way is it a moral cop out? This concept of freedom has a desire for people to follow their beliefs, but with that respect the beliefs of others as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of your own. In order for this to work, we can't go around automatically restricting the beliefs of others especially larger populations because they would reject the idea out right. Instead of forcing people into these beliefs, we have to understand that it took HUNDREDS of years for people to be who they are based on the foundations of others. It's not as simple as saying "it's immoral to be racist" because you're talking about hundreds even thousands of years of history where the opposite has been taught. I fail to see how in any way that's a moral cop out, and if anything, it promotes the morals of one's own kind. The part you haven't read about is that in order for society to progress, ideals must be tested. If we demand that some ideals never be tested, or that people are forced to make the right decision, then some where down the line someone is going to understand that coercion, and start a rebellion. Better causes than Martin Luther Kings have gone down in flames because of attempts of coercion in order to facilitate a state of prosperity where everyone is making the right decision. Also, morals in themselves are only relative to societies. There are communities that have killed people for stealing, and still societies today that practice cutting people's hands off. It sounds barbaric, but just like one person, you can't change an entire community or society, especially through force. You can be against people's beliefs, but the only way to change them is by changing the belief which again, takes more time and force than one human being can produce - But that doesn't mean you can't donate your own power to the force that evolves through time that is attempting to stop whatever belief it is you're opposing. see, this concept of freedom just doesnt work in a modern society. anti-discrimination laws are limiting the freedom of the employer, but there are very good reasons why we have them. there are plenty of other cases were this is the case and these kind of laws seem to work fine most of the time. and its a moral cop-out, because you can use this concept of freedom to deny any kind of resposibility for pretty much anything and hide behind the "it takes time" argument instead. in some cases, it does indeed take time. in other cases however, waiting isnt the right choice. the main reason why i dislike hayek are his thoughts on economics though, a la "Inequality is very pleasant" (yeah, i ripped that quote out of the context) . in the end, it boils down to me having a fundamentally differnt view on things like freedom, justice and humans in general. btw, your blog was pretty good, i enjoyed reading it
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have anti-discriminatory laws. But I am saying that we can't simply make a law and hope that if even 50%+ of the populace doesn't agree with it, they'll go with it because they won't. That's why the civil war started - Because the other half of the United States disagreed with the laws that were being forced on them, and to this day they still try to enact some of those principles. I don't agree with it, and I'm hoping they'll eventually start seeing people as equals, but the fact that people have attempted to take instant action through laws or other means through out history to squash those that disagree with a moral even if it's positive in nature has only made the problem worse. People will martyr themselves in a heartbeat for the causes they believe in - Attempting to restrict any belief will cause a rebellion that will make the ideal of whatever you're opposing more permanent instead of lessening it as your intentions tell you.
I'm not trying to say that it's ok for people to enact beliefs I disagree with or limit another's liberty through those beliefs, but again, using instant action for a long-term problem will likely create even worse long-term problems because there's a possibility you may influence them with the idea that they're more right than before because you're attempting to silence them. It seems silly but when you think about your own beliefs, and see what would happen if you were unable to speak or enact them, you would react in the same way.
There's no moral cop-out here because the pinnacle of liberty requires that people not be racist or homophobic in a way. There may come a time though where it may be accepted by all of society that either are best, though at the given moment, that seems impossible. But that's what Hayek is explaining - We're not the controllers of a society's destiny. We are only pawns, but we have the power to instantly change our own lives and the community with which we can directly interact and change - The belief systems of an entire group of people do not fall within either of those categories, so I fail to see why it's important for us to instantly change them if we can only do but a little bit at a time.
Also, Hayek's comments about equality are because our society was built on it's ability to test principles. If we're to equalize everyone, which as Hayek explains is impossible anyway, then we're to take away the greatest part of what has helped us develop into what we are now. The fact that there are people who have better access to better technology and resources doesn't mean our own life is worse off because we don't have that technology or resource, and in fact, we're better off with the technology we can use and understand because what's the point of having something you can't use and understand? The upper echelons of society test the ideals and technology we desire first so that it can be given out to the public in a capacity with which we can test so that it may be again passed down another level and so on, and so forth.
But as I said, Hayek explains that equalizing everyone is impossible anyway because unless we all take from the same gene pool, there will never be equality. Some people are literally born to do certain things better than other people simply because of the genetics they were given. This isn't to suggest that there is no hard work included, but it is to suggest that equality is only a possible dream within the understanding that we can only do so much to even the curve, and even what we can do should be limited because we need different environments to help us test different principles.
I don't think Hayek says that inequality is just because that's an entirely different philosophical concept. I think he's saying we should stop worrying about inequality, and worry about the life we're given with the circumstances provided. If you can't or don't want to help another, there's no shame in that. People will disagree with motives and philosophies, but in the end, time will show us what the best principles for running our society is - or we'll end ourselves because we didn't evolve in time. Either way, there's little control we have over other people, if any at all, so we should focus on promoting better ideals instead of trying to eliminate the ones we're opposed to.
|
I dont agree that equality is not something we should strive for. Equality means that everybody does have the same freedom. As well as freedom, equality is a concept that can never be total, but as well as freedom, we can try to get as close as possible to it without hurting others. There is also a strong tendency in people to go along with whatever is currently popular, meaning that people to some extend will start to think that racism is a good thing if their society tells them long enough. Or vice versa.
If everybody followed Hayek's idea of freedom, there wouldnt have been a French revolution or an American civil war. In that way it is a moral cop-out, because expecting from society that it will optimize itself through revolutions will only work if not everybody is waiting for the change. Society changes if the elements of it change, and absolute respect for the other's freedom will never create the snowball-effect needed to change it.
That doesnt mean that i dont agree to most of what you cited in the op. But trying to tell others about your ideals and discussing theirs is an important aspect to change society and w/o someone trying to change society it wont change at all.
|
On February 11 2014 09:19 Blackfeather wrote:
I dont agree that equality is not something we should strive for. Equality means that everybody does have the same freedom. As well as freedom, equality is a concept that can never be total, but as well as freedom, we can try to get as close as possible to it without hurting others. There is also a strong tendency in people to go along with whatever is currently popular, meaning that people to some extend will start to think that racism is a good thing if their society tells them long enough. Or vice versa.
If everybody followed Hayek's idea of freedom, there wouldnt have been a French revolution or an American civil war. In that way it is a moral cop-out, because expecting from society that it will optimize itself through revolutions will only work if not everybody is waiting for the change. Society changes if the elements of it change, and absolute respect for the other's freedom will never create the snowball-effect needed to change it.
That doesnt mean that i dont agree to most of what you cited in the op. But trying to tell others about your ideals and discussing theirs is an important aspect to change society and w/o someone trying to change society it wont change at all.
You do realize that the people who started the revolution were libertarians right? Their philosophy however was that they can construct a framework for people to live in, and they almost succeeded. Hayek's libertarian-ism is not far off from theirs except he does not suggest we should build a solid framework to start with, but instead ease in to each conversation as needed, and let the framework rise from experience and time. The libertarians, or the forefathers of the United States were French libertarians - Hayek is from the British school of libertarian-ism that eventually fizzled out around the same time or shortly there after the rise of the United States, likely because of Britian's need to remain in control over it's people.
Hayek's idea, again, does not avoid morals in any way. I'm not sure how you keep gathering that, but I specifically said that he suggests morals are developed automatically by the machine that is society. Each person is a part but only functions in whatever ability it decides. Morality stems from the need or want to survive, so we start having certain general rules like not killing, or not stealing are great examples of this. These morals are not because of stories, but stories exist because those morals were the tools that has helped build the foundation of society which many but not all exist in today.
The fact that people who are racist and homophobic exist however put a small stick in the gears of the machine. Groups of people who have developed through time the ideals that these things should exist, and have continued to follow them. This isn't surprising given the history of religions and more generally, large groups of people who have existed at any given point - They leave behind traces of who they were that may last for hundreds to thousands of years. Racism and homophobia are unfortunately among these things, and these people are not racist or homophobic because they want to be assholes. They're racist and homophobic because they as human being were given opportunities and decisions, and the result of the decisions became the evidence for the base of their beliefs.
If we're going to reverse these types of ideals, then you have to give them as much time as they've been alive to die - if it is going to die. The main reason I like Hayek is that while his ideas and logic are not always positive, they are safe to be applied universally. Society itself can be controlled, but in order to control it correctly, one must have all the knowledge in the world - which means that either you believe God controls morality, or you're similar to myself, atheist, and believe that you're part of a much bigger picture. You can make changes to society, and I even promote any sort of method you see as valuable even if I disagree with that value - But you have to understand that attempting to defile another for morals which they hold an exact opposite of your own view makes you no different than they are - even if society tells you that you are the better one.
The machine that is society, which cannot be controlled by any one man due to the need of all knowledge of the world, and therefore could be expanded to almost an infinite amount of people because of the necessary requirement to have the knowledge and understanding of everyone else's thoughts in existence, will always have an output whether it be good or bad. It's not up to any one of us necessarily to change the world, but it's up to each and every one of us to contribute in a way we desire. That extends to any activity as long as it does not invade the liberty of another - which includes acts of racists, homophobia, manipulation etc. Hayek is not against these things, but using Hayek's model, you have to understand we cannot simply tell people they can't believe what they believe because it's bad - We are in no position to do so, but we are in a position to promote more positive ideals through means that compete with the side of evil.
|
On February 10 2014 11:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 11:26 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much. I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy. I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy. I agree that not everything is quantifiable but Hayek is not the only economist who says that, and more importantly, it's not all he says. He says a whole bunch of other shit that's not true which explains why you somehow believe that the free market "controls itself" despite the fact that it doesn't. The market doesn't control itself. It can, in terms of numbers, be a functional wild cycle of ups and down, but not in a way that humans are willing to accept for a variety of social, cultural and political reasons. So you're allowed to like the mythical idea that the free market is a beast that tames itself despite the fact that the idea has proven many times to be unworkable, but let's not pretend like Hayek was great because his work of fiction seems eloquent. "It'll figure itself out".
"It'll figure itself out" is a misquote. Hayek doesn't believe that the market WILL correct itself, because the people within that market have to decide individually, or at least enough have to do that. If the market produces something bad, it's the reflection of the people who control it. In the case of economies that use central banks, and attempt to inflate or deflate the value of their currency at will, create "busts and booms." None of the numbers provided can give a clear answer - but that doesn't mean they're not useful. I think I suggested that, but now I wish to rescind it after some thought about it. The math economists do is not wasteful, and me calling them bad is no better than those I have suggested violate liberty in other ways. The numbers help economists with their job, but the bottom line is that the numbers aren't everything. There are things that are unable to be quantified or taken into account when it comes to people, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to get a clearer picture by having numbers. It's sort of a both are doable answer because of the need for multiple views according to the views of liberty I hold myself (which I have borrowed from Hayek) which are required in order to find the best answer.
|
On February 11 2014 12:03 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 11:41 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 11:26 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much. I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy. I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy. I agree that not everything is quantifiable but Hayek is not the only economist who says that, and more importantly, it's not all he says. He says a whole bunch of other shit that's not true which explains why you somehow believe that the free market "controls itself" despite the fact that it doesn't. The market doesn't control itself. It can, in terms of numbers, be a functional wild cycle of ups and down, but not in a way that humans are willing to accept for a variety of social, cultural and political reasons. So you're allowed to like the mythical idea that the free market is a beast that tames itself despite the fact that the idea has proven many times to be unworkable, but let's not pretend like Hayek was great because his work of fiction seems eloquent. "It'll figure itself out". "It'll figure itself out" is a misquote. Hayek doesn't believe that the market WILL correct itself, because the people within that market have to decide individually, or at least enough have to do that. If the market produces something bad, it's the reflection of the people who control it.
"It'll figure itself out" is not a misquote, just a simplification. Saying that individuals have to magically have some sort of cohesion to correct the market is not unlike saying we should establish world peace tomorrow.
In the case of economies that use central banks, and attempt to inflate or deflate the value of their currency at will, create "busts and booms." None of the numbers provided can give a clear answer - but that doesn't mean they're not useful.
Yeah, and the business cycle happens even when there's no central bank... They did, anyway. Pretending that the central banks are the root of all or most economic problems just seems ridiculous to me. Screwing around with interest rates and fiddling with the value of a currency is not done without its consequences, but counting on the people to keep the shit together has proven to be an ineffective way to run the show.
Even Milton Friedman knows that the Austrian Theory of economic cycles is bullshit. And he's Milton Friedman, he shits on Keynesian economics.
|
On February 11 2014 12:18 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2014 12:03 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 11:41 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 11:26 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much. I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy. I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy. I agree that not everything is quantifiable but Hayek is not the only economist who says that, and more importantly, it's not all he says. He says a whole bunch of other shit that's not true which explains why you somehow believe that the free market "controls itself" despite the fact that it doesn't. The market doesn't control itself. It can, in terms of numbers, be a functional wild cycle of ups and down, but not in a way that humans are willing to accept for a variety of social, cultural and political reasons. So you're allowed to like the mythical idea that the free market is a beast that tames itself despite the fact that the idea has proven many times to be unworkable, but let's not pretend like Hayek was great because his work of fiction seems eloquent. "It'll figure itself out". "It'll figure itself out" is a misquote. Hayek doesn't believe that the market WILL correct itself, because the people within that market have to decide individually, or at least enough have to do that. If the market produces something bad, it's the reflection of the people who control it. "It'll figure itself out" is not a misquote, just a simplification. Saying that individuals have to magically have some sort of cohesion to correct the market is not unlike saying we should establish world peace tomorrow. Show nested quote +In the case of economies that use central banks, and attempt to inflate or deflate the value of their currency at will, create "busts and booms." None of the numbers provided can give a clear answer - but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Yeah, and the business cycle happens even when there's no central bank... They did, anyway. Pretending that the central banks are the root of all or most economic problems just seems ridiculous to me. Screwing around with interest rates and fiddling with the value of a currency is not done without its consequences, but counting on the people to keep the shit together has proven to be an ineffective way to run the show. Even Milton Friedman knows that the Austrian Theory of economic cycles is bullshit. And he's Milton Friedman, he shits on Keynesian economics.
If chaotic cooperation isn't happening, then how did we get a long before governments? Did we just discover governments one day and suddenly started organizing society? This machine has been moving along for a very long time, and quite well without the intervention or the thought that we should try to make the macro decisions required.
Individuals don't "magically" correct the market. If you had read the entirety of what I wrote, you would have seen that I explained a free market does not mean prosperity at all and in fact could mean quite the opposite. It would be similar to the boom and bust cycle we're already a part of, but it would be easier to understand control the micro bits and see their change to the communities we belong in, instead of trying to force cohesion upon every part due to the word of a few men who believe they know best - which again, they do not due to the need of requiring the knowledge of every person that is alive and has been alive.
I would rather count on the chaos that is society to give me a market I can work with then pretend that anyone has the knowledge required to build AND control an economic system. It's simply impossible because of the required knowledge. Maybe one day when our brains can be expanded, but at the given moment, there's not a piece of technology or brain capable of being able to translate and acquire EVERY piece of information required to make choices with forseeable consequences.
I don't think it's that far of a stretch to depend on the chaotic cooperation of society in a free market since we already do that in most cases to start with and have been for some time. Governments and laws do not stop people from being better people - An individual has the ability to make their own choices, and some will ignore the rules laid for them by society. People don't kill or loot from each other less because of the consequences of the law, and more because they would prefer other didn't do it to them. It's a rule we've lived by before laws or systems governed people because we had to get a long to evolve. I don't think it's that crazy to think that we can take the same model, and apply it to a market - There will be people who ignore the outline of the market, but that seems to be better consequence then letting someone or a group of people attempt to convey to me that they know better.
|
On February 12 2014 11:39 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2014 12:18 Djzapz wrote:On February 11 2014 12:03 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 11:41 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 11:26 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 08:42 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 07:48 hoby2000 wrote:On February 10 2014 05:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 10 2014 04:54 Paljas wrote:
i dislike hayek
Likewise, but not for this. He's a failed economist but not necessarily a failed philosopher. I don't think he was a failed economist. I think his ideas were rejected because of their lack of supposed scholarly merit. Hayek's philosophies were based on around his experience in economics which was that there was no quantifiable force at work in any economy - therefore, the free market was the best option because the only force at work was chaotic cooperation. Not one man controls the economy, and there was no equation that could predict the outcomes of any action on the macro scale. In turn, he started to realize why so many past civilizations had failed, and especially since he was in Germany during World War 2, and saw what was happening. He ended up living in the UK area (or somewhere around there? I dk, I'm ignorant to that area at the moment) and the US where he saw similar sentiments on display before the rise of the nazi party in World War 2 Germany. it's not that Hayek was a bad economist - It's that there are only bad economists, and Hayek figured it out first. His focus became on people themselves who were the true players in the economy, and he started studying individuals. His ideas, rejected? Are you serious? Hayek is an iconic figure of Austrian economics, his ideas are rejected by competent economists today, but by no means is he marginalized. On wikipedia, you can read "Hayek's influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist". He's still big with incompetent economists (obviously, those PhD's would disagree with my layman's opinion, but Hayek is cited as a defense of libertarianism and other such ideals). That said, if his ideas were simply rejected for silly reasons, we wouldn't hear about him. He wouldn't be taught about in econ 101 classes. But he is, along with the likes of Smith, Mill, Marx, Friedman, Schumpeter and Keynes and all those big names that you need to know about to have some understanding of the ideologies that exist. As for the rest of what you're saying, you seem to paint Hayek as this neutral guy, when he's actually part of the "school of Chicago". He wasn't limited to saying other economists are bad. And lastly yes there are only "bad" economists because all models inherently end up failing at making predictions, but some economists got some of the principles right whereas Hayek didn't. At least not so much. I didn't mean to imply that Hayek was a bad economist - I'm saying that the free market suggests that only certain parts are quantifiable. A lot of economists reject his ideals because they're not quantifiable because that's what Hayek ended up realizing, which is why his books later in life talk more about the ideals of liberty, instead of referencing economic data for why the free market was better. There is no data that can support human motivation, and there's not a man or group of men among us who have the required knowledge to make such predictions. That's why I said, and I should have said it's my opinion, that a lot of people reject a lot of what Hayek said simply because he was suggesting that economists know as little as much as the people who are the consumers or actors in the economy. I'm not saying that I know economics, but it seems to me that if you're going to promote liberty, attempting to create an economy where you can run equations to help you understand the whole doesn't mean in line with those ideals. That's why I'm for the free market more because it promotes the idea that we can't control the economy because it controls itself through the equation that are the actions of the populace within said economy. I agree that not everything is quantifiable but Hayek is not the only economist who says that, and more importantly, it's not all he says. He says a whole bunch of other shit that's not true which explains why you somehow believe that the free market "controls itself" despite the fact that it doesn't. The market doesn't control itself. It can, in terms of numbers, be a functional wild cycle of ups and down, but not in a way that humans are willing to accept for a variety of social, cultural and political reasons. So you're allowed to like the mythical idea that the free market is a beast that tames itself despite the fact that the idea has proven many times to be unworkable, but let's not pretend like Hayek was great because his work of fiction seems eloquent. "It'll figure itself out". "It'll figure itself out" is a misquote. Hayek doesn't believe that the market WILL correct itself, because the people within that market have to decide individually, or at least enough have to do that. If the market produces something bad, it's the reflection of the people who control it. "It'll figure itself out" is not a misquote, just a simplification. Saying that individuals have to magically have some sort of cohesion to correct the market is not unlike saying we should establish world peace tomorrow. In the case of economies that use central banks, and attempt to inflate or deflate the value of their currency at will, create "busts and booms." None of the numbers provided can give a clear answer - but that doesn't mean they're not useful. Yeah, and the business cycle happens even when there's no central bank... They did, anyway. Pretending that the central banks are the root of all or most economic problems just seems ridiculous to me. Screwing around with interest rates and fiddling with the value of a currency is not done without its consequences, but counting on the people to keep the shit together has proven to be an ineffective way to run the show. Even Milton Friedman knows that the Austrian Theory of economic cycles is bullshit. And he's Milton Friedman, he shits on Keynesian economics. If chaotic cooperation isn't happening, then how did we get a long before governments? Did we just discover governments one day and suddenly started organizing society? This machine has been moving along for a very long time, and quite well without the intervention or the thought that we should try to make the macro decisions required.
You're missing the big picture here. Chaotic cooperation is a thing that happens in small tribes and in societies like Rome and other such "rudimentary" (or sometimes fairly elaborate) societies where there really was no financial market and no mass investments and no venture capitalism. Plus, even then, before there really were any central banks for anything else than storing coins, they still had economic meltdowns. And here we're talking about somewhat closed systems, usually with tens or hundreds of thousands of people at the most, rarely in the millions.
Modern capitalism is a much more complex thing, and to say that people can self regulate is to forget that they really don't. It's game theory at its finest. Everyone tries to maximize profits, fully aware that if too many people do it it'll eventually break down, so nobody tries to rationalize their investments and their ventures because why would they? Others are going to fiddle with it if you don't!
Today's society is more individualistic than it has ever been. Go back a couple hundreds of years, fuck, 50 years in most parts of the world, and people would be amazed if you told them that a bunch of people don't know their neighbors at all. Chaotic cooperation is limited by individualism and the feeling that my actions are largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. To deny the changes, both from mercantilism to capitalism and from the move from a holistic society to an individualistic one, you're setting yourself up for a poor analysis of how our economy reacts to its inputs.
I would rather count on the chaos that is society to give me a market I can work with then pretend that anyone has the knowledge required to build AND control an economic system. It's simply impossible because of the required knowledge. Maybe one day when our brains can be expanded, but at the given moment, there's not a piece of technology or brain capable of being able to translate and acquire EVERY piece of information required to make choices with forseeable consequences.
I don't see why. You're telling me you'd rather count on chaos than on relatively effective yet imperfect means of correcting the business cycle and preventing a complete meltdown. Sure we don't know everything so we can't tame the thing, at all. Nobody thinks we can, and everyone that's reasonable, even Hayek, know that we can't predict everything. Human behavior is a constant wild card. Knowing that, we can TRY to deal with it by fiddling with the variables that we know some stuff about. And as our understanding of what happens expands, we can hope to better control the thing.
But the part of your logic that IMO makes no sense is that somehow, our limited understanding of the mechanics (and the fact that certain things are spontaneous and largely inexplainable) justifies doing nothing about it. Now I've read what you mean and I understand that you don't think the market "magically" corrects itself, but if the argument is that we don't know, then how do we know that nothing is better than something?
Regardless of all that, like I said, even Milton Friedman thinks the Austrian business cycle theory is bullshit. And again like I said, I don't even agree with Friedman for the most part. And Friedman got a whole lot more shit right than Hayek did as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
