Defending Capitalism: Ayn Rand vs. Hayek
Hayek argues that the reason we need freedom is because of our ignorance or really the limits of the power of reason. Without this limitation, there would be no justification for freedom.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
Don't fret there are still Constitutional Centrists out here who see both parts of the Government Party for what IT is.
Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.
“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek
This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.
“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek
This is an attack on both reason and ethics.
“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek
This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.
Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.
“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek
This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.
“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek
This is an attack on both reason and ethics.
“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek
This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.
As posted yesterday I have a digital copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty that contained the text critiqued in the article. I am already reading that one. There were ~17 years of observation for Hayek between "Road" and "Constitution."
Friedrich A. Hayek, Rules and Order, Volume 1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty: A
New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy (New York:
Routledge, 1973), pp. 9-10; Friedrich A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of
Socialism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 61-62.
3 Hayek, Fatal Conceit, p. 20
Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.
“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek
This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.
“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek
This is an attack on both reason and ethics.
“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek
This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.
Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls ―"constructive rationalism.” This puts Hayek up there with Kant and Hume.
“―no universally valid system of ethics can ever be known to us.” Hayek
This shows that Hayek is a moral relativist.
“―[M]orals, including, especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man‘s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution.” Hayek
This is an attack on both reason and ethics.
“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty” Hayek
This shows that Hayek does not think Freedom is valuable, it's tolerated because it results in economic efficiency.
There is a difference between efficiency and freedom. Sweet it is when they coincide as often they do. But there are times when a choice is needed.
According to Robbie, Hayek says central control will never work, but it does work in some circumstances, and works well, then should individual choice be over-ridden?
Rand clearly says, no. Individual freedom is paramount,
Hayek says he cannot imagine how it could be (my words), so, maybe.
Aspects for more consideration- times of war, IP enforcement, net neutrality.
Load more comments...