Friedrich Hayek on social conservatism
Mar 17, 2018 22:48:08 GMT -4
Hypso The Musky Rat-Kangaroo likes this
Post by Souriquois on Mar 17, 2018 22:48:08 GMT -4
Friedrich Hayek is like the capitalist equivalent of Karl Marx, and is the biggest influencer of politics on the centre-right/right in the Western world today.
Many right-wingers who claim social conservatism is part of the right embrace Hayekian economics, but seem to only pay lip services to his views, since Hayek has always made it abundantly clear that social conservatism is anathema to capitalism:
He also was not fond of racism, and say in incompatible with capitalism:
I am not a fan of Hayekian economics, but I have read him and he knew his shit, he had informed critiques of other economic writers like Marx and Keynes, and had interesting debates with them. Seems people who throw around the word "Marxism" don't have such a robust critique. It's also interesting to note, how many of his followers today do not heed his message.
While Hayek is not a fan of redistributive economics, he was not a sociopath either, he believed that people should have the basics:
So if Hayek was around today, it would be safe to say, he would be pretty disgusted at the direction politicians who pay lip service to his philosophy have taken... and disgusted by society in general.
I find it funny too, that people claim the rise of Trump and the alt-right are a result of so-called "social justice warriors" and "political correctness". That is actually a very Hayekian interpretation, because he made similar arguments about the rise of fascism in Europe back in the 1930s. It's a very old argument.
Many right-wingers who claim social conservatism is part of the right embrace Hayekian economics, but seem to only pay lip services to his views, since Hayek has always made it abundantly clear that social conservatism is anathema to capitalism:
Conservatism; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true capitalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.
He also was not fond of racism, and say in incompatible with capitalism:
Any kind of discrimination — be it on grounds of religion, political opinion, race, or whatever it is — seems to be incompatible with the idea of freedom under the law. Experience has shown that separate never is equal and cannot be equal.
While Hayek is not a fan of redistributive economics, he was not a sociopath either, he believed that people should have the basics:
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all; or more briefly, the security of a minimum income] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured... but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist... individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... [And] there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist... individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... [And] there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law.
I find it funny too, that people claim the rise of Trump and the alt-right are a result of so-called "social justice warriors" and "political correctness". That is actually a very Hayekian interpretation, because he made similar arguments about the rise of fascism in Europe back in the 1930s. It's a very old argument.