Political Theory

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:44:39 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Hayek, in Road to Serfdom (p. 110):

We have no intention, however, of making a fetish of democracy. It may well be true that our generation talks and thinks too much of democracy and too little of the values which it serves... Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget taht there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies—and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majority democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship. Our point, however, is not that dictatorship must inevitably extirpate freedom bu rather that planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is possible. The clash between planning and democracy arises simpy from the fact that the latter is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires.

This is in line with the quote in the opening post. Hayek believed that democracy had its weaknesses, but when compared to autocracy was superior, because at least is provided some safeguards against oppression. One might bring up Roosevelt as a counterpoint, but perhaps the Roosevelt administration is the best example of Hayek's political theory in action—Roosevelt did many things which beforehand would have been considered unacceptable of a government, but all the while there were limitations to what he eventually did (for example, the NRA was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court [although they upheld the Wagner Act of 1935]). In the quote in the opening post, it becomes clear that what Hayek is saying is that democracy "works" (in the sense that it is the best possible government) if within that democracy people remain aware of liberty and any restrictions of.

I understand that he believed Democracy worked better then an Autocracy. I do also realize, though, that he saw the pitfalls of a democracy and what it can and usually does lead to. This is why I am hung up on it and am confused as to why he believed that it was something that we should look to achieve, in addition to freedom.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:32:54 GMT

Hayek, in Road to Serfdom (p. 110):

We have no intention, however, of making a fetish of democracy. It may well be true that our generation talks and thinks too much of democracy and too little of the values which it serves... Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget taht there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies—and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majority democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship. Our point, however, is not that dictatorship must inevitably extirpate freedom bu rather that planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is possible. The clash between planning and democracy arises simpy from the fact that the latter is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires.

This is in line with the quote in the opening post. Hayek believed that democracy had its weaknesses, but when compared to autocracy was superior, because at least is provided some safeguards against oppression. One might bring up Roosevelt as a counterpoint, but perhaps the Roosevelt administration is the best example of Hayek's political theory in action—Roosevelt did many things which beforehand would have been considered unacceptable of a government, but all the while there were limitations to what he eventually did (for example, the NRA was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court [although they upheld the Wagner Act of 1935]). In the quote in the opening post, it becomes clear that what Hayek is saying is that democracy "works" (in the sense that it is the best possible government) if within that democracy people remain aware of liberty and any restrictions of.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:22:31 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

You should take into consideration that there is the distinct possibility that Hayek believed that some goods have to be provided by the public sector. Mises said, "Government is essentially the negation of liberty," but he was not an anarchist. So, by extension Hayek might have believed that democracy was the best way to achieve as much freedom as possible, or perhaps he was interested in maintaining some following by conceding the idea that democracy is the best form of government.

If there is or was a possibility, I imagine that Hayek would have wrote about them. I haven't read much of his works to know whether he did or not though.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:14:21 GMT

You should take into consideration that there is the distinct possibility that Hayek believed that some goods have to be provided by the public sector. Mises said, "Government is essentially the negation of liberty," but he was not an anarchist. So, by extension Hayek might have believed that democracy was the best way to achieve as much freedom as possible, or perhaps he was interested in maintaining some following by conceding the idea that democracy is the best form of government.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:07:02 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

I'm not sure of what type of government he was in favor of. I have often read that of all classical liberals of the Austrian tradition (and of that generation), he was the closest to anarchist. But, he was not an anarchist. Hayek is well-known for playing arbitrator, and he used this tactic to garner his writing much wider support. Hayek was very pragmatic when it came to converting people outside the realm of those who already believed with his premises.

I ask because he made it seem like we should be trying to achieve freedom and democracy, unless I'm understanding incorrectly. If what I think he is saying is true, I find it hard to take the entire section that I originally quoted from him very seriously. I would hope that someone of his intellect would see that democracy simply does not work, not to mention I thought that he did, given what he wrote prior to what I quoted.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Thedesolateone — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:04:18 GMT

I suspect Hayek believed in democracy, but one with a strongly enforced, and rigid constitution.

Not that I think that is possible -- but he did!

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:32:33 GMT

jmorris84:

Was Hayek in favor of a democracy?

I'm not sure of what type of government he was in favor of. I have often read that of all classical liberals of the Austrian tradition (and of that generation), he was the closest to anarchist. But, he was not an anarchist. Hayek is well-known for playing arbitrator, and he used this tactic to garner his writing much wider support. Hayek was very pragmatic when it came to converting people outside the realm of those who already believed with his premises.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:37:42 GMT

Smiling Dave:

jmorris84:

What did Hayek mean by the following?

Yet freedom and democracy are not free gifts which will remain with us if we only wish.

The time seems to have come when it is once again necessary to become fully conscious of the conditions [no central planning, meaning capitalism]

which make them possible [because central planning leads to one guy making the decisions {end of democracy} and shutting up every dissenter on ANY TOPIC in jail or the grave {end of freedom}],

and to defend these conditions even if they seem to block the path to the achievement of other ideals [free lunch for all].

I got this from the context.

Was Hayek in favor of a democracy?

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:05:38 GMT

Hayek means that freedom and democracy are not characteristics which remain true no matter what decisions humans and politicians make. They are ideals subject to confusion. We should actively defend these ideals against other choices, such as socialism.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

Smiling Dave — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:57:34 GMT

jmorris84:

What did Hayek mean by the following?

Yet freedom and democracy are not free gifts which will remain with us if we only wish.

The time seems to have come when it is once again necessary to become fully conscious of the conditions [no central planning, meaning capitalism]

which make them possible [because central planning leads to one guy making the decisions {end of democracy} and shutting up every dissenter on ANY TOPIC in jail or the grave {end of freedom}],

and to defend these conditions even if they seem to block the path to the achievement of other ideals [free lunch for all].

I got this from the context.

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:10:24 GMT

If I understand him correctly, he is implying that Capitalism is what allows the achievment of ideals such as Socialism or Communism and even if that is so, we should still defend Capitalism.

Is that right?

Re: Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

nirgrahamUK — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:38:53 GMT

he means what he said ?

Question on today's Mises Daily by Hayek

jmorris84 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:52:41 GMT

What did Hayek mean by the following?

Yet freedom and democracy are not free gifts which will remain with us if we only wish.

The time seems to have come when it is once again necessary to become fully conscious of the conditions which make them possible, and to defend these conditions even if they seem to block the path to the achievement of other ideals.