posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy
regulations/social safety nets/redistribution to help ameliorate imperfections in unrestrained Capitalism.
So that means he's an advocate of socialism? You read ONE Hayek book - road to serfdom - and based on that you jump to the conclusion that, in your
haphazard words: "and the funny thing I've found is that they actually ADVOCATE for populist regulations/welfare/redistribution/Socialism to a
certain extent to right the wrongs of Capitalism. ". Based on a few modest concessions to things which most rational people can understand a purpose
for. You overzealously leap to extreme conclusions about what Frederich Hayeks political beliefs were. You're a joke. It would have been better not
to have mentioned that you've only read one of his writings (his earliest, and least explanatory). Add to your reading list: the fatal conceit and
the constitution of liberty, if you want to understand the subtleties of Hayeks actual political positions.
Hayeks general theory is this. People can't be trusted with too much power. For example, the Nazis inherited the socialist architecture built into
the German government by successive German governments from Bismarck to the weimar republic. The conclusion being, the original irenic intent of
german socialists contained within it the possibility of evil people inheriting that power. That's the vital question: can the people who hold such
power be trusted to let democracy run it's course? Or will they try, as the Nazis and communists did, to shape for themselves a "utopia", which
involves undermining the will of the people they're there to represent?
It's not pathetically weak. What was PATHETICALLY WEAK was your initial comment where you fail to address Socialism and simply regurgitate the tired
old example of extreme/despotic state-Communist societies. It's pure cherry-picking prejudice based on a narrow view of reality. If you analyze the
spectrum of Socialism and concepts with Socialist leanings, you will NOT find tyrannical state-Communism as its result, period.
Judging from your name and your overall angry tone, you seem like a radical who believes a society without "hierarchy", a basic construct of human
reality, is possible.
I'm really not as dogmatically attached to "capitalism", or rather, decentralized government, as you're obsessively tied down to your idea of a
"no hierarchy" utopia.
I live in Canada. I'm for a mixed system, with the option for private health care for those who choose it. However, as I pointed out above, I oppose
this extremist viewpoint which sees communism as a panacea, a ticket towards Utopia, when over and over and over again pure marxism has resulted in
economic privation and the evisceration of liberty.