#1 Best Seller.

[JayB]

His argument vis-a-vis Pinochet was that the the operation of market forces would generate a political dynamic that would be far more likely to undermine authoritarianism than to reinforce it.

 

More free-market mythmaking and obfuscation with regard to both the social dynamics that brought the Pinochet regime down as well as the numerous contemporary authoritarian states where "free markets" have been imposed that are still waiting for that heavenly manna that's "sure to follow" from privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, union busting, cuts to social budgets, and the penetration of American corporations. The kind of "no pain, no gain" moral relativism at the core of your statement also lays bare the false libertarianism and violence at work in the heart of market utopianism: it's our way or the highway, there is no alternative and we have the guns to prove it. Gross.

 

I think that the argument was that economic freedom was necessary, but not sufficient for political freedom.

 

Market processes undermine an authoritarian regime's capacity to enforce obedience. Concentrating all economic power in the state's hands guarantees it.

 

Cuba. Chile.

 

Compare and contrast.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

He was a liberal, not an anarchist, so he didn't spend his time debating whether or not government was necessary, but rather the proper scope of government.

 

like you guys are for the "proper scope of government" and we get to enjoy the mess you created every day.

 

What part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would you like to eliminate in order to realize your vision of "social justice" and why?

[j_b]

huh? I have no issue with a democratic republic but it is quite clear that people like you and Hayek do.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

huh? I have no issue with a democratic republic but it is quite clear that people like you and Hayek do.

 

[j_b]

I think that the argument was that economic freedom was necessary, but not sufficient for political freedom.

 

except that your vision of economic freedom contains little freedom for the wage earner.

 

Market processes undermine an authoritarian regime's capacity to enforce obedience. Concentrating all economic power in the state's hands guarantees it.

 

Cuba. Chile.

 

Compare and contrast.

 

there is nothing to compare. Unfettered capitalism was a complete failure in Chile, and state intervention in the economy proved necessary to repair the so-called "economic miracle" implemented by Friedman and the Chicago boys.

 

In the meantime, Cuba hasn't be free to trade within its natural economic environment for half a century thanks to the US embargo.

 

[prole]

His argument vis-a-vis Pinochet was that the the operation of market forces would generate a political dynamic that would be far more likely to undermine authoritarianism than to reinforce it.

 

More free-market mythmaking and obfuscation with regard to both the social dynamics that brought the Pinochet regime down as well as the numerous contemporary authoritarian states where "free markets" have been imposed that are still waiting for that heavenly manna that's "sure to follow" from privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, union busting, cuts to social budgets, and the penetration of American corporations. The kind of "no pain, no gain" moral relativism at the core of your statement also lays bare the false libertarianism and violence at work in the heart of market utopianism: it's our way or the highway, there is no alternative and we have the guns to prove it. Gross.

 

I think that the argument was that economic freedom was necessary, but not sufficient for political freedom.

 

Market processes undermine an authoritarian regime's capacity to enforce obedience. Concentrating all economic power in the state's hands guarantees it.

 

Cuba. Chile.

 

Compare and contrast.

 

No one here is talking about "concentrating all economic power in the State's hands" except you and Hayek, which of course always makes your arguments look better, but doesn't go very far in explaining how many industrialized nations have done better in providing their citizens with a high quality standard of living, protecting their environments, and greater participation in decision-making than those countries and deterritorialized zones that have gone furthest toward "economic freedom". Furthermore, the real blind spot (if you can call implicit and explicit acceptance, if not glorification, a blind spot) in these ideas are their acceptance of class rule and the stark inequalities of access to public goods and political power inevitably generated by the functioning of the capitalist free markets. This is really what "the proper role of government" is all about for you folks: how to maintain control and stability in a system that, by its nature, thrives on inequality and to what extent the State steps in to wipe the ass of the ruling class when its projects inevitably generate crises. Neither of these formulae require or operate very well in the context of political democracy, hence we're back to their authoritarian and antidemocratic underpinnings.

Edited June 10, 2010 by prole

[JayB]

His argument vis-a-vis Pinochet was that the the operation of market forces would generate a political dynamic that would be far more likely to undermine authoritarianism than to reinforce it.

 

More free-market mythmaking and obfuscation with regard to both the social dynamics that brought the Pinochet regime down as well as the numerous contemporary authoritarian states where "free markets" have been imposed that are still waiting for that heavenly manna that's "sure to follow" from privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, union busting, cuts to social budgets, and the penetration of American corporations. The kind of "no pain, no gain" moral relativism at the core of your statement also lays bare the false libertarianism and violence at work in the heart of market utopianism: it's our way or the highway, there is no alternative and we have the guns to prove it. Gross.

 

I think that the argument was that economic freedom was necessary, but not sufficient for political freedom.

 

Market processes undermine an authoritarian regime's capacity to enforce obedience. Concentrating all economic power in the state's hands guarantees it.

 

Cuba. Chile.

 

Compare and contrast.

 

No one here is talking about "concentrating all economic power in the State's hands" except you and Hayek, which of course always makes your arguments look better, but doesn't go very far in explaining how many industrialized nations have done better in providing their citizens with a high quality standard of living, protecting their environments, and greater participation in decision-making than those countries and deterritorialized zones that have gone furthest toward "economic freedom". Furthermore, the real blind spot (if you can call implicit and explicit acceptance, if not glorification, a blind spot) in these ideas are their acceptance of class rule and the stark inequalities of access to public goods and political power inevitably generated by the functioning of the capitalist free markets. This is really what "the proper role of government" is all about for you folks: how to maintain control and stability in a system that, by its nature, thrives on inequality and to what extent the State steps in to wipe the ass of the ruling class when its projects inevitably generate crises. Neither of these formulae require or operate very well in the context of political democracy, hence we're back to their authoritarian and antidemocratic underpinnings.

 

 

Clearly the shortest path to utopia involves allowing the state to outlaw a sufficient number of activities that adults engage in with one another or on their own without directly harming anyone else.

 

What freedoms are people in the US currently exercising that you would like to see eliminated in order to achieve aggregated social and environmental metrics that have standard deviations with a smaller magnitude, and what areas of discretion do they have over their own lives that should be supplanted by state supervision in order to achieve the same?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JosephH]

Hayek wrote an essay titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative"(included as an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty), in which he disparaged conservatism for its inability to adapt to changing human realities or to offer a positive political program.

I'm guessing off hand Hayek couldn't stomach the undisciplined and insatiable greed, the gravity of which conservatives never seem to escape in [daily] practice. Conservative economic theory always ends up being implemented pretty much the same way Stalin and Mao interpreted socialism, to benefit themselves at the expense of the people all the while mouthing endless rhetorical bullshit.

 

What freedoms are people in the US currently exercising that you would like to see eliminated in order to achieve aggregated social and environmental metrics that have standard deviations with a smaller magnitude, and what areas of discretion do they have over their own lives that should be supplanted by state supervision in order to achieve the same?

The freedom today's conservatives cherish most - the freedom to privatize profits and socialize losses while gaming the financial, energy, and healthcare systems to extract cash without providing value. Or, as put more succinctly by someone wiser than myself:

 

Corporations, absent appropriate regulatory oversight, are indistinguishable from organized crime.

Today's conservatives are a sham of hypocrisy. Their whole schtick remains putting on a tired Punch & Judy show of social issues while simultaneously doing everything in their power to fuck the average American in every conceivable way. They defend gaming those systems by loop-holing, co-opting, budgetarily strangling, or outright dismantling regulatory oversight under the guise of "smaller government". Nothing stands as a greater monument to the essence of today's conservative 'beliefs' than all the corner Dunkin' Donuts which have been converted to PayDay loan boutiques (with the possible exception of the oil now lapping the shores of gulf red states).

 

So you can spout all the economic philosopy you want, but in in the end the proliferation of the republican-supported and Wall Street-backed PayDay industry is the unarguable and indelible watermark of core conservative values [and economic theories] on American society.

[Choada_Boy]

Here's the companion volume:

 

[prole]

Market processes undermine an authoritarian regime's capacity to enforce obedience. Concentrating all economic power in the state's hands guarantees it.

No one here is talking about "concentrating all economic power in the State's hands" except you and Hayek, which of course always makes your arguments look better, but doesn't go very far in explaining how many industrialized nations have done better in providing their citizens with a high quality standard of living, protecting their environments, and greater participation in decision-making than those countries and deterritorialized zones that have gone furthest toward "economic freedom". Furthermore, the real blind spot (if you can call implicit and explicit acceptance, if not glorification, a blind spot) in these ideas are their acceptance of class rule and the stark inequalities of access to public goods and political power inevitably generated by the functioning of the capitalist free markets. This is really what "the proper role of government" is all about for you folks: how to maintain control and stability in a system that, by its nature, thrives on inequality and to what extent the State steps in to wipe the ass of the ruling class when its projects inevitably generate crises. Neither of these formulae require or operate very well in the context of political democracy, hence we're back to their authoritarian and antidemocratic underpinnings.

Clearly the shortest path to utopia involves allowing the state to outlaw a sufficient number of activities that adults engage in with one another or on their own without directly harming anyone else.

 

What freedoms are people in the US currently exercising that you would like to see eliminated in order to achieve aggregated social and environmental metrics that have standard deviations with a smaller magnitude, and what areas of discretion do they have over their own lives that should be supplanted by state supervision in order to achieve the same?

 

As usual, it's clear that when, in the context of oil spills, financial meltdowns, crumbling institutions, predatory exploitation, and any of the other highly destructive pathologies wrought by free-market fundamentalism flashing across our screens daily, one must revert to the airless, abstracted world of "consenting adults acting in their interests not harming anyone" to describe the activities of offending corporations and banks, the only utopian in the room is you. What is also clear from this calculus is that, in spite of obvious and overwhelming sensory evidence that the notion of a self-regulating market society is a destructive fiction, you're willing to justify, sweep under the rug, and otherwise obfuscate just about any catastrophe or ongoing horror to salvage, A. the theories you've come to base your identity on or B. your class position or the the class you aspire to become a part of. Sorry Jay, humanity and the other species that live on this ball don't have time for your parlor games.

[G-spotter]

When you concentrate all economic power in a small group of people, it doesn't matter if that group is a government or a board of directors.

[olyclimber]

DO YOU WANT YOUR DEATH PANEL TO BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

[ivan]

children are innocent

a teenager's fucked up in the head

adults are even more fucked up

and elderlies are like children

will there be another race

to come along and take over for us?

maybe martians could do

better than we've done

we'll make great pets!

my friend says we're like the dinosaurs

only we are doing ourselves in

much faster than they

ever did

we'll make great pets!

[prole]

I'm guessing off hand Hayek couldn't stomach the undisciplined and insatiable greed...

 

Unfortunately, your guess would be wrong. Hayek and followers were concerned mostly with justifying, if not outright glorifying undisciplined and insatiable greed.

Edited June 10, 2010 by prole

[JosephH]

Not at all, Hayek and his school simply felt that market signaling is about the future versus the past. That state 'morality' relative to any resulting social injustices and redistribution of wealth to address them was inappropriate and incompatible with what he saw as the way markets function.

 

But Hayak - who spent no small amount of time wandering around epistemology, ethics, and politics underlying economic theory - in the end was an 'optimist' relative to beliefs like:

 

...rules of just conduct, like the order of actions they make possible, will in the first instance be the product of spontaneous growth.

So quite the contrary, he wasn't really theorizing about economies dominated by robber barons, felons of the Enron ilk, or an instance where the entire financial system might one day be gamed by means of pervasive fraud like we've just experienced. He assumed some baseline of 'honesty' in the market and probably implicitly understood the inherent greed underlying much of the conservative tract and the criminality perpetually roiling for escape that goes with it - i.e. they have little 'positive' to offer.

[billcoe]

Please, can't we just cut right to the name calling, I don't want to buy the book till it's less money and all this conversation about ideas is making me curious now.

[E-rock]

It just goes to show to the true elitist book reading intellectuals are: Glenn Beck listeners.

 

Indeed, the sale spike is linked to Beck's pushing it on his propaganda show. It must make JayB all warm inside to know that Beck's viewers, people with the average acumen of a tea pot, will read that book.

 

...a book you are too stupid and brain-damaged to comprehend

 

Yeah!, you stupid brain-damaged dummy! Cuz if you weren't so stupid and brain damaged and you could comprehend it, you'd like completely agree with it.

[prole]

That state 'morality' relative to any resulting social injustices and redistribution of wealth to address them was inappropriate and incompatible with what he saw as the way markets function.

 

Yay? I agree with the interpretation but don't see how it couldn't be anything but a ideological justification for just about any kind of (private) abuse. When one begins from the assumption that any intervention to prevent, redress, remediate social injustice to actually existing human beings (or the environment) is deemed inappropriate and incompatible with a sanctified abstraction, the "way markets function", the scope of said injustices is virtually unlimited.

 

Or rather they're limited by people's willingness to live with them and/or the biosphere's ability to absorb them, both of which we're seeing now. In the real world those injustices and dislocations inevitably generate social dynamics that lead further from rather than closer to market utopia. A companion piece to Hayek is Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation.

[olyclimber]

Well I think the most telling statistic is how Hayek responds to seeing a snake

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20007335-10391698.html

[G-spotter]

Selma Hayek is hot.

[giza]

so is your sister

[rob]

his sister is OK, if you don't mind the penis