[jeffkrol]

food for thought or for those who are just bored.. There is a lot here so take your time:

first Hayek on
"Why I am not a Conservative"...........

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

Brilliant stuff

Then " Everything you thought about Austrians but were afraid to ask".

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Austrian Economics.

[GeneV]

It is important to realize how far out there Austrian economists are. It is all or nothing. A number of them, most notably Murray Rothbard, believe Adam Smith was a "proto-Marxist." Fractional reserve banking is considered something like a crime against nature. It is not an economic theory, but a religion. When an original theorist of capitalism writes a chapter (Book V of Wealth of Nations) which admits some value to free education and roads, some degree of regulation and suspicion of public corporations, he is vilified.

Measurement and actual experience is often discarded in favor of pure theory. Nevertheless, it does fit in with a faith-based political philosophy. All things must have a single good or evil cause.

[jeffkrol]

As well stated by Krugman...........
The Hangover Theory - By Paul Krugman - Slate Magazine

The hangover theory is perversely seductive—not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.
Powerful as these seductions may be, they must be resisted—for the hangover theory is disastrously wrongheaded. Recessions are not necessary consequences of booms. They can and should be fought, not with austerity but with liberality—with policies that encourage people to spend more, not less. Nor is this merely an academic argument: The hangover theory can do real harm. Liquidationist views played an important role in the spread of the Great Depression—with Austrian theorists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter strenuously arguing, in the very depths of that depression, against any attempt to restore "sham" prosperity by expanding credit and the money supply. And these same views are doing their bit to inhibit recovery in the world's depressed economies at this very moment.

[causey]

Hayek was talking of the British Conservatives, which have little, if anything, to do with American Conservatism. (The latter cannot pride itself with anyone like, say, Michael Oakeshott. Admittedly, Hayek was referring to the British Conservative political mass--I think he actually shared many of Oakeshott's Conservative beliefs.)

[jeffkrol]

Why I Am Not a Conservative

In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960

Really best read it in it's entirety..............

This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. it is a duck...................

[Nesster]

so what about this "pain" that people of this school call for in economic hard times? Somehow I get an image of a shiny skinned wire rimmed glass wearing crypto-nazi dentist with a thing for sadism...

[jeffkrol]

Browser crashed before I finished the above:
There is no doubt "consev" and "lib" are confusing terms even within our country. One must just look for the links to "define" each..

Academic analysis

Academic discussion of conservatism in the United States has been dominated by American exceptionalism, the theory that British and European conservatism has little or no relevance to American traditions. This is in contrast to the view that Burkean conservatism has a set of universal principles which can be applied all societies.[197] According to political scientist Louis Hartz, because the United States skipped the feudal stage of history, the American community was united by liberal principles, and the conflict between the "Whig" and "Democratic" parties were conflicts within a liberal framework.[198] In this view, what is called "conservatism" in America is not European conservatism (with its royalty, landowning aristocracy, elite officer corps, and established churches)

with its royalty, landowning aristocracy, elite officer corps, and established churches.......... IS that any different from "oligachs, "wealthy politicians" and christianity".......

Certainly it is more likely that Eur-Am Conservaitves are more alike NOW than different..............

Why I Am Not a Conservative

There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism....................



But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: "the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form."

The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic[12] - but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.

PRAYING for rain?? What side of the coin does THAT fall on????

,

it might not make so much difference if the defenders of freedom call themselves conservatives, although even here the association with the conservatives by disposition will often be embarrassing. Even when men approve of the same arrangements, it must be asked whether they approve of them because they exist or because they are desirable in themselves. The common resistance to the collectivist tide should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.

or a romantic admiration for what has been........................sound familiar???

Hayek may not really be directly referring to Conserv. then BUT sure as heck seems to refer to them NOW.........

Theodore Adorno and Richard Hofstader referred to modern American conservatives as "pseudo-conservatives", because of their "dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions" and because they had "little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism"
euro conservs of the past or modern "conservs"...seems they are converging.........

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-11-2011 at 09:45 AM.

[jeffkrol]

so what about this "pain" that people of this school call for in economic hard times? Somehow I get an image of a shiny skinned wire rimmed glass wearing crypto-nazi dentist with a thing for sadism...

It's called economic musical chairs.. where the economic chair is continuously pulled out from under the "rabble" who of course are left on their own till another oligarch finds then "useful"..meanwhile population control culls the masses....

Repeat ad-nauseum.....

Brilliant philosophy............

[jeffkrol]

Just a brief note..

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

Again, and most especially when Hayek wrote the above, it pertained primarily to conservatism in America. And today’s U.S. conservatives? He’d vomit them from his mouth.

Sorry only a bit of a blog but found it.. err.. funny...........
Hayek’s “Why I Am Not a Conservative” ? The League of Ordinary Gentlemen


Basic premise on "the road to serfdom" in europe.. Sorry just wanted to throw that last part in..

In considering the relevance of Hayek’s critique
to today’s politics in the United States,
we have to keep in mind that the regulations
imposed by Congress and the Obama administration
were limited to two large industries—
health care and finance—and not the
economic system as a whole. When Hayek
was writing, his concern was with the development
of intellectual support for economic
planning, which, if it had been instituted in
Britain, would have resulted in control over
the entire economy.

A little for everyone..........brought to you by "our friends" at the Heritage foundation.....
http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2011/spring/spring.pdf

[jeffkrol]

Sorry, restless night here:

The speeches ended, and Soros eluded more questions about politics. One reporter tried to ask him about the Koch brothers; Vachon quickly assured Soros that he didn't really know them, and that the question needn't be answered. He did take a question about Hayek.

Was his dream of a high-minded political/economic discussion possible?

"Stop proving your point by proving the other side wrong," he said. "Once you recognize that principle, you have a reasonable base for discussion. Get to some new basis for discussion instead of effectively tearing the country apart, which is what right now the political parties are doing."

But how did that happen? One reason for the renewed interest in Hayek, after all, is the newfound interest in The Road to Serfdom, his best-selling but least serious work. Glenn Beck's viewers haven't read much about Hayek's rejection of conservatism or even his economic theories. They've read about how any and all social welfare leads inexorably toward fascism.

"[Hayek] has, perhaps, allowed himself to be used by some extremists without him being an extremist," shrugged Soros. With that, he headed out of the building.

George Soros at Cato: It's all about Hayek. - By David Weigel - Slate Magazine

[GeneV]

Hayek was both right and wrong in some sense. He is correct that economics is not a strict science which can be proven completely with rigor by experimental means. However, his adherents take that as license to throw all experience out the window and deal only in logical proofs which support their theories. One of the most obvious evidence of these failings to me is the thrashing about around how crashes and cycles could occur before the evil central bank came about. Hayek's meta approach should have softened the discussion of those principles, but it has instead led to an absolutist fervor that leads to black and white thinking and gridlock. This quote from the Soros remarks is right on point:

"Stop proving your point by proving the other side wrong," he said. "Once you recognize that principle, you have a reasonable base for discussion. Get to some new basis for discussion instead of effectively tearing the country apart, which is what right now the political parties are doing."

[jeffkrol]

O/T but a bit interesting........



The Cartoons, T h o m a s N a s t . c o m

Times change don't they............

The Cartoons, T h o m a s N a s t . c o m

This cartoon by Thomas Nast compared the peaceful political convention in New Orleans with the orchestrated massacre of its participants by Mayor John Monroe and his police. The Convention had been sanctioned by the governor, but was considered illegal by Monroe and the lieutenant governor. Its objective was to enfranchise blacks, so they could help Radical Republicans gain control of the state. General Philip Sheridan, who was the military chief of Louisiana, was out of town on July 30, the day of the riot.

Tension builds

The Constitutional Convention of 1864 gave greater freedoms to blacks within Louisiana but did not provide for a provision for black voting rights. The black Republican radicals, with the intent of changing the voting laws of Louisiana and eliminating the Black Codes, attempted to reconvene the convention, and succeeded.6 At least 200 black Union war veterans were confirmed beaten to death in the street. The illegality of the convention was because the elected chairman Howell had left the original convention before its conclusion and was therefore was not considered a member, the constitution was accepted by the people, and the radicals, only 25 of whom were present at the convention of 1864, did not make up a majority of the original convention. On July 27 the black supporters of the convention met on the steps of the Mechanics institute and were stirred by many speeches by abolitionist activists, most notably Anthony Paul Dostie and former Governor of Louisiana George Michael Hahn. These speeches called for a march upon the Mechanics Institute to show support for the convention.
[edit] The riot

The convention met at noon on July 30, but because there was a lack of a quorum there was a recess until 1:30.[6] When the convention members left the building they were met by the black marchers led by a marching band. On the corner of Common and Dryades streets across from the mechanics institute there was a group of armed whites standing and waiting for the black marchers[7]. This group was full of radical Democratic anti-abolitionists and ex-confederates who wished to dispel the convention to spell the growing power of blacks within the state. It is not known which group fired first but within minutes there was a battle in the streets. The black marchers, unprepared for a fight, dispersed with many seeking refuge within the mechanics institute. The white mob outside brutally attacked the marchers. The riot was soon dispelled and many of the white agitators were thrown in jail. The city was declared under martial law until August 2.

just for historical interest:
http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/cabildo/cab11.htm

[jeffkrol]

Really quite interesting.......
David Graeber: On the Invention of Money ? Notes on Sex, Adventure, Monomaniacal Sociopathy and the True Function of Economics naked capitalism

Or is economics instead a technique of operating within a world that economists themselves have largely created? Or is it, as it appears for so many of the Austrians, a kind of faith, a revealed Truth embodied in the words of great prophets (such as Von Mises) who must, by definition be correct, and whose theories must be defended whatever empirical reality throws at them—even to the extent of generating imaginary unknown periods of history where something like what was originally described ‘must have’ taken place?