tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post2836946686999289191..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: Jesse Larner On Friedrich HayekRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-29239772841517493572008-02-21T17:20:00.000-05:002008-02-21T17:20:00.000-05:00Iain, I sometimes find responding to your comments...Iain, I sometimes find responding to your comments difficult. You are more informed on some aspects of my posts - e.g., I know nothing about a debate between Hayek and Rothbard. On other points, I don't entirely agree, but I find it more work than I want to clarify where we agree and disagree.Robert Vienneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-27419312690957395322008-02-18T05:28:00.000-05:002008-02-18T05:28:00.000-05:00before I forget, I should point out that there has...before I forget, I should point out that there has not been an example of "planning" leading to fascism/Stalinism. In fact, quite the reverse as dictatorships have implemented planning (the Bolsheviks, most obviously).<BR/><BR/>During the 1960s/70s, the elite were far more concerned about the lack of obedience within the general population than any fear of state totalitarianism. That saw them undermine the social Keynesianism of the post-war period, break union power and so on -- precisely to enforce "traditional values" and "management's right to manage" (i.e., know your place in the social hierarchy). <BR/><BR/>In other words, back to the kind private serfdom denounced by the likes of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Marx...<BR/><BR/>Ironically, I suppose the example of Chile could be used, although that was a dictatorship imposed by the right... Should I mention von Hayek's less than critical comments on Pinochet here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-50256915642249192522008-02-18T05:16:00.000-05:002008-02-18T05:16:00.000-05:00Many more extreme right-"libertarians" have made t...Many more extreme right-"libertarians" have made the same point, namely that von Hayek was not consistent enough and so cannot be considered a genuine "libertarian". <BR/><BR/>He did debate with Rothbard on whether someone appropriating the single oasis in a desert could not considered coercive or not. Rothbard, of course, argued that it was not. Hayek could not bring himself to admit this was the case, so changed his definition of coercion to bring his position in line with common-sense. <BR/><BR/>Rothbard, of course, refused to recognise the existence of "economic power" (at least when it came to his beloved capitalism, he did make some highly illogical exceptions which reflected reality on occasion)<BR/><BR/>The "Critiques of Libertarianism" webpage has some links to other right-"Libertarians" critiquing his position:<BR/><BR/>http://world.std.com/~mhuben/liblib.html<BR/><BR/>one of those is Walter Block, who defends voluntary slavery, and another is Hoppe who thinks that monarchy is a better form of government than democracy....<BR/><BR/>Of course, Hayek's version of the "calculation argument" is just as applicable to large capitalist firms as it is to central planning. And his ideology played it role in creating the road of private serfdom we are currently on...<BR/><BR/>Iain<BR/><A HREF="http://www.anarchistfaq.org" REL="nofollow">An Anarchist FAQ</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com