Originally Posted by Msut77 Not really the exact thread to put this, but as good as any. Can Libretarianism be debunked in one short article? http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/n...sm_liberty.php It appears the answer is yes.

I feel like Southpark is guilty of this too.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163...ocial-security

Originally Posted by Msut77 http://www.thenation.com/article/163...ocial-security

Hayek was not as laissez-faire as many who came before him, his colleagues, or those who came after him. In terms of political philosophy, he was comparatively statist. I can also show you a number of anarchists who advocate using social security under current conditions, so I'm left to conclude that the point of the story is that the Koch brothers are bad actors. Which isn't really disputed by me, they're oligarchs above all else.

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess Hayek was not as laissez-faire as many who came before him, his colleagues, or those who came after him. In terms of political philosophy, he was comparatively statist. I can also show you a number of anarchists who advocate using social security under current conditions, so I'm left to conclude that the point of the story is that the Koch brothers are bad actors. Which isn't really disputed by me, they're oligarchs above all else.

Very true about Hayek. Adam Smith proposed a social security-like program as well.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...shes-socialist

I think a lot of Paul supporters clearly haven't examined what all the crap that comes out his mouth means.

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess Hayek was not as laissez-faire as many who came before him, his colleagues, or those who came after him. In terms of political philosophy, he was comparatively statist. I can also show you a number of anarchists who advocate using social security under current conditions, so I'm left to conclude that the point of the story is that the Koch brothers are bad actors. Which isn't really disputed by me, they're oligarchs above all else.

Hayek did advocate for a minimum state, especially in vol 2 of Law Legislation and Liberty. However it is important to not that this was not the social security net he was advocating and the fact that he got it showed how philosophically and personally hollow both Koch and Hayek were. For the most part he advocated the basic level only for those who could not under almost any circumstances support themselves (think mentally disabled, orphans and certain people with physical ailments like quadriplegia or loss of limbs that kept people from working and the really advanced elderly). If it was not under these circumstances than no one should take any social services at all.

Secondly make nooo mistake about why he wanted the minimum social safety net. He had an almost irrational fear of what he called the tribal nation, namely a nation of mobs where people get together to influence others. He saw these as things such as religions and charities as these tribal entities. So he advocated a minimum income to protect against deprivation which in his mind torn people to these tribal agencies. But is against straight up income redistribution because it is totalitarian or offering aid to certain groups, such as the Native Americans or any group that receives these aids due to class/race/clan/occupation, an act he deems as not meeting his necessary clause (which in all his books he never really defined). In effect he is not actually worried about helping people, but rather he sees these things as protections against people choosing to go to a tribal society because of the harsh realities of capitalism.

Make no mistake, he was a total capitalist and believed in the system completely. His stances on social safety nets had less to do with statism, which he actually identified as a tribal society, and more to do with his fear of a tribal slide to totalitarianism. However this does not apply to him as his actions showed. He wasn't a statist at all, he just realized that when capitalism and a minimum state screw the bottom class, the bottom class will come knocking on the door with pitchforks.

Originally Posted by cindersphere ...he just realized that when capitalism and a minimum state screw the bottom class, the bottom class will come knocking on the door with pitchforks.

This is my impression of why laissez faire capitalists justify a redistribution of wealth. It's not for any altruistic reason, but for a minimum level of protection from the destruction they unleash on society.

He went to the "government with a gun to the head" metaphor over public roads.

'Scuse me while I pick my jaw up off the mothering floor.

Originally Posted by mykevermin He went to the "government with a gun to the head" metaphor over public roads. 'Scuse me while I pick my jaw up off the mothering floor.

Not knowing much about Hayek, I was always under the impression that he wasn't one of the worst of the bunch. I guess I was wrong...not the first or last time I bet! lollers

that was Ron Paul who said that in msut's link, not Hayek.

Given who is likely to be the beneficiaries of state-imposed violence, as we can see from the police response to the Occupy movements in multiple cities, it's about time we stopped letting Republicans use the "government gun to the citizens' heads" metaphor.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by mykevermin that was Ron Paul who said that in msut's link, not Hayek. Given who is likely to be the beneficiaries of state-imposed violence, as we can see from the police response to the Occupy movements in multiple cities, it's about time we stopped letting Republicans use the "government gun to the citizens' heads" metaphor.

Ah...thanks for clarifying. I thought you were responding to cindersphere's post.

Now that I've watched the video, I'm surprised Paul went in the direction he did because I don't recall him using that particular metaphor before...or maybe he's been so full of crazy that I'm starting to forget. It's hard enough to keep track of all the crazy from the last couple months as it is.