|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:37 PM
Posts: 292,
Visits: 934
|
|
Marios (4/3/2008)
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
I see where you're coming from. Hayek's basic principle was that working to help others was dangerous, because it encouraged them to be reliant on you, leading to greater authority at the centreand so eroding freedom. It ignores (or rather, hand-waves and pretends it's not an issue) the idea that human beings can co-operate without either a) authority or b) the desire to screw one-another over. I've always been torn between my sympathyfor anarcho-communism and a more practical social democracy. It shows in the way that thinkers like Hayek rub me up in the wrong way.I don't think that's quite Hayek's point - I haven't read The Road to Serfdom yet, but it seems to be entirely compatible with idea that co-operation and helping other people is good - what it's not compatible with is the idea that you can farm that out to a state organisation without undermining local authority. Helping people is fine so long as you don't elect an Emperor of Helping People and demand that everyone give him all the resources they would otherwise use to help people one on one. Ditto, local co-operation worked out between individuals Good, local co-operation where a central executive tells people how they will co-operate with the grand plan Bad.
I'd call that a very fluffy interpretation of Hayek - you're trying to rationalise a deeply nasty philosophy. Hayek distrusted altruism in all its forms because it interferes with the operation of the market. Now, my memory becomes a little fuzzy at this point because I'm not sure whether what I'm remembering is actually Hayek, or Nash's application of Hayek to Game Theory. But my recollection is this - for society to operate smoothly, it requires all participants to act in their own self-interest, without regard for the consequence. You can see why Thatcher is such a big fan, right?
How is this 'fascism'? Fascism is rather vague and romantic - but one thing which all fascisms seem to agree on is the need for a strong authority _beyond the rule of law_. I think you can accuse Hayek of being a fluffy liberal who says we can make do with less authority - I don't think you can accuse of being a romantic who wants us as all to put our trust in one central authority. I think you're conflating fascism with totalitarianism. Fascism doesn't necessarily require a strong central authority (although it does lend itself to it), just a guiding belief in the supremacy of individual will. This is why I specified 'Neitzsche-esque' because I'm thinking about man versus superman. For both Hayek and Neitzsche, the individual is sacrosanct and (shades of Rand here too) must not be made to bend to the will of the group. The massive, glaring hole in Hayek's philosophy for me is that he argues that altruism and collectivism lead to oligarchy/autocracy, but ignores that total liberty (that is to say, anarchy without the checks and balances of altruism and voluntary collectivism) are considerably more likely to lead oligarchy/autocracy. Remember that Hayek's fans make up a veritably rogue's gallery of modern politics - Thatcher, Reagan, Project for the New American Century. Politicians who pumped billions into repressive methods of social control (police, defence and the drafting of new laws to criminalise their opponents) while letting the robber barons run free. All in the name of 'economic freedom' and the 'rule of law'. And this isn't like the case of a philosopher like Neitzsche (or Marx, for that matter) who had no opportunity to criticise the uses his work was put to (if, indeed they had wanted to). No, Hayek (and Nash and Friedman) had the opportunity to disown their disciples when they saw the misery they had caused. But no, Hayek was there to collect his Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush Snr.
If you caricature a philosophy, it's hardly surprising if you find it's not good for much. If you find yourself compelled to caricature a philosophy, that may be a sign that you have an apriori attachment to a belief that doesn't allow to actually consider it seriously (it's not terribly suprising if a committed Christian finds materialism to be of no use to them!).
I was a lot closer to the Hayek persuasion when I was younger. I think a lot of people (particularly roleplayers, for some reason) go through a Neitzsche/Hayek/Rand phase in their teens/early 20s, even if they're not conscious of it (I didn't encounter Rand until I was a fair bit older, but I recognise the sentiments). What I'm saying is, I have considered these things seriously but grew out of it. 'Growing out of it' is the right phrase too because looking back I find something slightly juvenile about most Libertarian philosophies (note: Libertarian, rather than merely Liberal). Obsessed with the self, defining 'freedom' as 'doing what I like' and short on the hard graft that makes big ideas work. As the joke goes: Q: How many Libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? A: None, they're waiting for a market solution.
-- -- -- Eos: Manius Shard, most patient man in the World of Dawn FnH: Officious Guard no.1
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 9:27 AM
Posts: 1,754,
Visits: 5,138
|
|
I'm still totally in my Hayek phase now, even at 38...
You did mean Salma Hayek, right? What she did with that snake...
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:23 AM
Posts: 1,912,
Visits: 8,029
|
|
Ian Sturrock (4/3/2008)
Even with big tax raises to pay for that £150 pw (or £100 pw, since it's clearly too generous for slackers of Shven's magnitude), because the mean wage is higher than the median wage, most people would be financially better off.
Most _people_ would be better off, but most _wage earners_ would be worse off (which could well lead a lot of people to retire early/not bother working for minimum wage/find that they can no longer afford to pay London rents even if they have a pretty decent job -> less wage earners paying 150 to everyone would further increase the tax per wage earner with predictable effects).
If you're going to scale back, keep going until you reach the level set out by the Citizen's Wage bods - but even then, note that they admit that they'd need to increase Income (or other) Tax by 100 billion (60%). I'm not an economist, but I suspect that (even!) a 60% increase in Income Tax would have a devastating effect on the economy.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 9:27 AM
Posts: 1,754,
Visits: 5,138
|
|
I disagree -- most wage earners would be better off, too. Most benefits claimants certainly cost the state over £100 each pw, once you take into account income support / JSA, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and admin.
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:23 AM
Posts: 1,912,
Visits: 8,029
|
|
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
I'd call that a very fluffy interpretation of Hayek - you're trying to rationalise a deeply nasty philosophy.
Calling it a "deeply nasty philosophy" hardly inclines me to believe that you're proffering an unbiased interpretation. I'm just going on what I remember from scanning his stuff and the wikipedia write-up. Hayek was mates with Popper and a life long fluffy liberal authority-hater.
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
Hayek distrusted altruism in all its forms because it interferes with the operation of the market.
No, I think it's more that he distrusted altruism because he felt it was a good cover for the accumulation of power in the hands of the few (i.e. we need this power to help everyone). Given the period and countries he lived in, these weren't vague paranoid concerns - he lived through the rise of communism and fascism in Europe.
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
Now, my memory becomes a little fuzzy at this point because I'm not sure whether what I'm remembering is actually Hayek, or Nash's application of Hayek to Game Theory. But my recollection is this - for society to operate smoothly, it requires all participants to act in their own self-interest, without regard for the consequence. You can see why Thatcher is such a big fan, right?
I think you've been watching too much Adam Curtis or someone equally earnest but ill-informed about game theory. Game theory is all about considering the consequences - generally people criticise it for assuming that people are too rational (take too many of the consequences into consideration). Game theory is rather unpopular because it makes people ask questions like "Whose good?" (the prisoner's dilemma is a nice example where there are two contradictory definitions of good - 'local good' and 'global good').
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
I think you're conflating fascism with totalitarianism. Fascism doesn't necessarily require a strong central authority (although it does lend itself to it), just a guiding belief in the supremacy of individual will. This is why I specified 'Neitzsche-esque' because I'm thinking about man versus superman.
I'm not sure where you get that definition from. Fascism is often poorly defined (like most shouted insults), but generally means something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes.
This - as I think you're saying - is almost totally the opposite of what Nietzsche was arguing for (and he certainly wasn't anti-semitic either! That was his sister/brother-in-law). "Nietzscheque fascism" is like saying "Anarchic Totalitarianism".
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
For both Hayek and Neitzsche, the individual is sacrosanct and (shades of Rand here too) must not be made to bend to the will of the group. The massive, glaring hole in Hayek's philosophy for me is that he argues that altruism and collectivism lead to oligarchy/autocracy, but ignores that total liberty (that is to say, anarchy without the checks and balances of altruism and voluntary collectivism) are considerably more likely to lead oligarchy/autocracy.
I don't think he ignores it, I think he doesn't believe that it's true. How many countries have you personally seen experiment with this? I'm not inclined to pick sides, but I have to point out that he lived through some of the things that you're conjecturing about - like most liberals of that period he was originally sympathetic to socialism - it certainly wasn't close-minded ignorance that turned him away from it. So I think it's a bit rich to say he's "ignorant" of some of the fairly basic concepts floating about in the 1920's.
Also, how many collectivist/'explicitly state-altruist' governments have turned into oligarchy/autocracies? Lots of people pick criticise America but you'd have to be impressively dogmatic to argue that Russian communism wasn't dramatically more autocratic than American democracies whatever it's failings.
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
Remember that Hayek's fans make up a veritably rogue's gallery of modern politics - Thatcher, Reagan, Project for the New American Century. Politicians who pumped billions into repressive methods of social control (police, defence and the drafting of new laws to criminalise their opponents) while letting the robber baronsrun free. All in the name of 'economic freedom' and the 'rule of law'.
Popular as it is to demonise Thatcher and Reagan, I'm not sure they really measure up to the fans of opposing positions - i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin. I'm not trying to say that the status quo shouldn't be criticised - but if you're comparing political models you really need to consider whether Reaganite America is really comparable to the rise of the Russian Mafia/oligarchs - I think Russia had (still has as far as I know) real problems that rather trivialise wealth inequalities in Reaganite America.
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
No, Hayek (and Nash and Friedman) had the opportunity to disown their disciples when they saw the misery they had caused. But no, Hayek was there to collect his Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush Snr.
Again, I think if you're making a broad statement about economic models that cause human misery then I think comparing liberal capitalism to some fictional utopia and accusing Hayek and others of being responsible for the suffering is rather unfair - if you're going to make comparisons, you should make comparisons in kind (i.e. compare liberal capitalism with other _real_ economic/political models). In which, I think they come off looking quite good - there are some countries - places like Sweden with very low population density and lots of natural resources - which, I think, did quite well all throughout the 20th century - but otherwise I think liberal Capitalist America/Britain was a much nicer place to be than, say, East Germany.
Also this from the wiki article:
Hayek wrote an essay titled Why I Am Not a Conservative[12] (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.
Rather suggests that he wasn't a political adherent of the Republican party.
theshoveller (4/3/2008)
What I'm saying is, I have considered these things seriously but grew out of it. 'Growing out of it' is the right phrase too because looking back I find something slightly juvenile about most Libertarian philosophies (note: Libertarian, rather than merely Liberal).
Who knows, maybe you'll grow out of this phase too? That's the exciting thing about life, there's never a point where you can look back and say "Well, now I'm old enough to _know_ I'm right, rather than merely _thinking_ I was right when I was younger!". Just because - if it is the case - you had juvenile beliefs about libertarianism that doesn't mean that other libertarians share the same juvenile ideas. I often find the most upsetting thing isn't people who disagree and deploy silly arguments - it's people who think they are agreeing with you who then enthusiastically trot out awful self-contradictory crap who are the most upsetting.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:23 AM
Posts: 1,912,
Visits: 8,029
|
|
Ian Sturrock (4/4/2008)
I disagree -- most wage earners would be better off, too. Most benefits claimants certainly cost the state over £100 each pw, once you take into account income support / JSA, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and admin.
First off you can have a look at that link for the actual operating costs of the DWP. First off, there are 8 million unemployed people (of working age) - only 1 million are claiming unemployment benefit. Secondly, admin costs are trivial (~5%). If you're ditching the whole system and not putting in something to cover housing benefit then, as the Citizen's Wage people pointed out, some people (poor people) are suddenly not going to be able to afford house/food/children.
The basic income doesn't just apply to the 1 million people currently claiming benefits - it applies to the other 7 million unemployed people of working age, all the people older than working age and children. Even if you provide only 50 for kids and only increase pensions to 100 that's still a dramatic increase.
With the figure of 280/260 extra billions pounds to be taken in Income (or other) tax I think it's fairly clear that most wage earners would be worse off (someone has to be - even if all 8 million leap into basic taxable jobs there's still 260 more billion pounds to be found - if you reduce the payout for basic income you can reduce that, but the Citizen's Wage people cut corners pretty sharply and were very thorough and couldn't get it below 100 billion extra).
I find it hard to see how we can get an extra 100 billion pounds (60% increase on Income Tax returns) without quite a large fraction of wage-earners being worse off (you can raid people's savings/tax the rich to death - but neither of those solutions strike me as sustainable).
If you want the government to throw money at everyone in the country then they've got to take that same money off people in order to be able to hand it out.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Eos Staff
Last Login: Today @ 10:09 AM
Posts: 419,
Visits: 1,742
|
|
Sarah (4/3/2008)
How do you stop people from spending their £150 subsistence income on other things?You don't. From a Green perspective, I'm not terribly in compulsion unless it's totally unavoidable. We provide, in the form of Citizen's Income funded by Land Value Tax, and people use it how they see fit. In the absence of a benefits system to exploit, the lack of food or whatever soon rearranges priorities, I guess. You also combine it with investment in the healthcare and education system to try to nip that stuff in the bud before it happens.
---
Joe Rooney, the Enemy Of Fun
Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting. First event: 24-26 October 2008, in Leicestershire. Book online before October 1st for £10 discount!
Bladelands: Raoul Ortez - heretic, medium, bodyguard and scumbag
EOS: staff
Joe R's LARPCard
|
|
|
| | |