Why does pic related make normies seethe so much? He was basically right about everything. Mussolini and other fascist "thinkers" started out as socialists, many Communists defected from the ranks of the Communist Party of Germany thus showing that fascism and socialism are really two sides of the same coin and that the supreme enemy of both is liberalism. He also very presciently predicted how "democratic" economic planning would eventually be usurped by unelected experts who would start society down a path no one wanted to take.
>>23623906I was about to read this last week but decided to read Henry James instead. bumping
>>23623936by all means read it, it also has a shorter Reader's Digest version if you're interested
>>23623906What are you on about? There are plenty of "normies" and economists who won't ever shut up about how "great" Hayek is and why we all need to take up Austrian School economics. Most of the Libertarian movement in America worships on the altar of Hayek, Mises, and even Friedman. You want to look at the effects of Hayek's liberal individualism on society? You're living in it.
>>23623970>we must live in an ant colony like the Chinese >why?>for the white race of course!
>>23623970the average normie in 2k24 is a tranny-worshipping environmental freak who wore a mask and got 35 jabs during COVID and now wants to eat bugs so that China can pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. your sociological observation maybe had some merit around 2006, not so today
>>23623998>the average normie in 2k24 is aNo, they're not. Where did you gather the data you're basing this off of?
>>23623906St. Augustine used to be a Manichaeistic, then he became Catholic! Wow Catholicism is just Manichaeism is disguise?
>>23623936>>23623947It also has a comic for an even easier read. I've been thinking about that a lot recently as I think it's an effective way to get ideas across. You start with your dense academic tome, write another book for general public consumption and then go even lower by making a movie and a graphic novel.
>>23624036Going outside
>>23623906>Why does pic related make normies seethe so much? He was basically right about everything."The representation of *catalaxis* as a game providing "impersonal" chances and in which it is normal for there to be winners and losers is in reality untenable. The existence of abstract rules does not actually suffice to guarantee that everyone will have the same chance to win or lose. Hayek forgets that the chance to win is not the same for all, and that the losers are often always the same ones. Hence, the results of the game cannot be regarded as uncertain. In order for them to become uncertain, it would be necessary for the game to be "corrected" by the willful intervention of public power, which Hayek vigorously rejects. What is one to think of a game where, as if by chance, the winners keep winning, while the losers keep losing? According to Hayek, to charge that the spontaneous order is "unjust" is tantamount to falling into anthropomorphism or "animism," even in the logic of the scapegoat, because it would be like looking for someone responsible or guilty, where no one is. But, as Jean-Pierre Dupuy has noted, here the argument backfires because, if there is a decisive acquisition in the process of social evolution, it is that it is now generally ackowledged that it is not fair to condemn an innocent person. From this viewpoint, it is rather the denial of the mere notion of social injustice which calls for pause. In seeking to avoid the logic of the scapegoat, Hayek himself becomes guilty of it: in his system, not only are scapegoats simply the victims of social injustice, they are even forbidden to complain. To claim that social justice means nothing amounts to transforming the victims of injustice into scapegoats of a theory of its legitimation. Then the sophism consists in saying that social order is neither just nor unjust, while concluding that we must accept it as it is, i.e., as though it were just."
>>23623970Hayek was mainstream for a brief period of time during the 80's during the Regan/Thatcher era and when he got his Nobel prize.The libertarian movement is anything but normie, most Normies think we're facists and trump supporters and the Austrian school is dismissed as unscientific.
>>23623970We are probably living in the biggest and most encompassing states since liberal democracies were born, and their size is increasing. That's the absolute opposite of libertarian doctrines.
>>23625367The state is now even bigger than previous absolute monarchies in the Middle Ages or Modern Age, because the surveillance and control technologies are more sophisticated.
>>23625367>That's the absolute opposite of libertarian doctrines."Hayek's efforts differ from classical liberalism because of his attempt to re-ground the doctrine at the highest possible level without recourse to the fiction of the social contract and by attempting to avoid the critiques usually made of rationalism, utilitarianism, the postulate of a general equilibrium or of pure and perfect competition founded on the transparency of information. In order to do this, Hayek is forced to raise the stakes and to turn the market into a global concept necessary because of its totalizing character. The result is a new Utopia, predicated on as many paralogisms and contradictions. Actually, as Caille put it, were it not for "the welfare state's failure to achieve social peace, the market order would have been swept away a long time ago." A society based on Hayek's principles would explode in a short time. Furthermore, its institution can only be the product of a pure "constructivism" and would undoubtedly require a DICTATORIAL STATE. As Albert O. Hirschman writes, "this allegedly idyllic privatized citizenship, which only pays attention to its economic interests and indirectly serves the public interest without ever playing a direct role — all of this CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED WITHIN NIGHTMARISH POLITICAL CONDITIONS." That today "national thought" is being reinvigorated by this type of theory says a lot about the collapse of this thought."
>>23625379>actually, as Caille put it, were it not for "the welfare state's failure to achieve social peace, the market order would have been swept away a long time ago."The market order simply can't disappear. Even if you strangle individual agency on each state, the relations between states are anarchic and, therefore, follow the rules of free market, with the only difference that the market becomes appallingly clumsy because of the state's incapacity to arrange resources at the micro level from a macro (centralised) information input node. I also don't see the reason adduced for concluding that Hayek's model needs a dictatorial state. Even implying so, you have yet to proof that such state would need to be bigger than the ones we have now, because, as I stated before, there are totalitarian states in history, like absolute monarchies, that had smaller states not only in net size (which would be unsurprising, as the population has grown exponentially) but also in relative size with respect to GDP, and that could be the case for the purported dictatorial state you talk about.
>>23623906>Why does pic related make normies seethe so much? OP you are a fucking normie and you are shilling it. In fact, normies like you shilling Hayek is the only case when he's mentioned on this board.
>>23625379>this allegedly idyllic privatized citizenship, which only pays attention to its economic interests and indirectly serves the public interest without ever playing a direct role. Aren't the interventionist states we have now preoccupied with macroeconomic indexes? They are always willing to save stupid banks for their stupid decisions, at the expense of the individual contribution from taxes. A libertarian society does not only leave the task of social welfare to individuals but also economics. In the current state of things, there are a myriad of companies that privatise benefits but socialise their losses, whereas in a libertarian society both aspects are privatised. Moreover, what is that "public interest" all about? The state is not an ethereal substance that somehow translates the sum of individual wills into a perfect unified will in the name of public interest, but an organised will comprised of few individuals, following the iron law of oligarchy (Robert Michels). Therefore, what you call "public interest" is just the maximum intromission in individual agency that such ruling class perceives as not enough as to provoke social uprising, often disguised as social welfare to legitimate themselves.
>>23625419>I also don't see the reason adduced for concluding that Hayek's model needs a dictatorial state."As for the market, if it is not the natural form of exchange. Its birth cannot be related to a slow evolution of customs and institutions free of all "constructivism." Rather, the opposite is the case: the market constituting a typical example of an *instituted* order. As already indicated, the logic of the market, a phenomenon both particular and recent, does not come into being until the end of the Middle Ages, when the emerging states, concerned with monetarizing economies in order to increase their fiscal resources, began to unify local and long distance commerce at the heart of "national" markets they could more easily control. In Western Europe, France in particular, the market, far from being a reaction against the state, came into being through its initiative. Only subsequently did it emancipate itself from "national" borders and constraints, with the gradual growth of the autonomy of economics. Strictly a voluntary creation, at the beginning the market was one of the means the nation-state used to dispose of the feudal order. It sought to facilitate fiscal practices in the modern sense of the term (non-market, intra-communitarian exchanges were intractable). This entailed the gradual elimination of autonomous organic communities and, consequently, centralization. In this way, both the nation-state and the market favored an atomized society where individuals are gradually disentangled from all intermediary socialization.">the relations between states are anarchic and, therefore, follow the rules of free market,"Hayek's vision of a "primitive" man living in the "tribal order," while rather different from that of Hobbes or Locke, or even Rousseau, is otherwise anthropologically trivial. To regard traditional societies as privileging voluntarist ("constructivist") behavior is questionable, because these societies are governed precisely by traditions seeking to reproduce themseves. On the contrary, it can be argued that it is the "grand society" which welcomes new projects and deliberate designs. In other words, it is traditional and "tribal" societies which come about spontaneously, while modern societies are *instituted*. Alain Caille rightly observes that, to make freedom a function of conformity to the traditional order "leads paradoxically to the conclusion that the only just society conceivable is a closed one rather than the Liberal Grand Society." By definition, the society whose "*themis*" is closest to "*nomos*" is actually a closed traditional society (open, however, to the cosmos): from Hayek's viewpoint, it is even more "just" (or, rather, even less "unjust") in that it seeks to perpetuate its identity by founding itself on usage."
>>23625447Nigga thats' communism
>>23625462i agree, keynes was the world's greatest communist
>>23623936It’s really just one frog talking
>>23625459As for the first paragraph, I would say that such market born in parallel with the nation-state (presumably during or after the French Revolution) is not a free market but an intervened one. One of the specific policies applied to control the market was setting the metric system for units -overlapping with the scientific/positivist ideas of enlightment-, because previously each community had its own units of reference, which they shared through orality; centralising units achieves a more successful measurement of land or whatever commodity, leading thereby to a more successful taxation of those. I have learnt this from libertarian sources, so it seems like a widespread idea among libertarians that the previous unintervened market is more desirable than the one born after the french revolution, at least when it comes to the easier taxation that it implies.As for the second paragraph, I don't think that primitive societes are solely governed by traditions, and I think that such idea is wrong in the exact same way that the social contract is, just applied for a less sophisticated society. Traditions are, like the state, not a metaphysical entity that strictly shapes the decisions of the tribe. They are rather a primitive version of law, and have to be enforced anyway by the ruling class of the tribe (there's always a leader), which is going to adequate the interpretation of those traditions to reach an equilibrium between them and the rest of inhabitants who produce goods and, ultimately, rely one on each other; therefore, there is not a taxative limit that separates tribal, spontaneous society, and the current states we have now. The current states have evolved from tribal society in a continuum, and freedom and free market have always been intertwined with violent authority, because such authority needs certain extent of freedom to parasite its production of commodities.
>>23625379Wasn’t Hirschman a snake?
>>23625556so at the end of the day what libertarians really advocates for is primitive communism or is having division of labor too much intervention for you
>>23625564No, a true libertarian doesn't advocate for a substantive production model enforced from the state (not even capitalism), we then observe which production models can be born when a set of minimal rules are set. We advocate for the maximum absence of coercion, and that can lead to both capitalism or private communist organisations, because free individuals can choose to join a commune, for example; and that is one of the biggest virtues of libertarianism, namely, that free individuals can choose to found private socities that embody any other philosophy, whereas authoritarian philosophies don't allow libertarianism or any other authoritarian philosophies within the borders of their state. Those private organisations could use whatever production model they want, as long as their children are not forced to belong to them (which would be to reproduce the social contract phallacy). However, most libertarians advocate for capitalism, but they should do it from a minimal ethical expression stance, not as an obligation.
>>23625593>weif you like being a free individual so much why do you tout the party line like a hivemind
>>23625611Bad bait, it would be arrogant to act as if I came up with these ideas and a extensive list of libertarian authors didn't write about them before. There are several issues in which libertarians disagree (like abortion), but what I stated is the bare minimum of libertarian philosophy.
>>23623906He was literally wrong about everything. Private capital works by accumulating greater amounts of capital, and when this is applied to land (which is a natural monopoly and operates under monopoly prices where the owner extracts the maximum a renter can pay), you have an ever increasing cost of living while wages do not keep up. That is the true road to serfdom, not the government spending money on social programs which actually transfer value to the average citizen. The Austrian school of economics is one of the most retarded groups to ever exist.
>>23625419The market order is radically different without a government. The fact is that paper currency is so massively beneficial and efficient that some group will begin using it and gain power by having control over it. It's just a function of time before that happens in any market. It's such a weird delusion that Libertarians have that, if only the government wasn't there, all oppression would vanish. Power tends to centralize, and centralized power corrupts. If you have no formal system to account for this, you will be worse off.
>learn that the 1% richest will soon own 2/3 of all wealth>learn that there is no viable way to stop it without causing colossal deadweightloss and povertyAre we really going either cyberpunk or venezuela?
>>23625447>Aren't the interventionist states we have now preoccupied with macroeconomic indexes? They are always willing to save stupid banks for their stupid decisions, at the expense of the individual contribution from taxes.IN democracy merchants and bureaucrats the same. Thoese people take as much money from the population as possible knowing fully that it's the population who will pay dearly the inevitable fuck up of the elites.Civil servants jsut get rich by taking money and creating debt, and merchants just take money thru selling the products the same population produces thru labor.
>>23626770what the plebs calls "corruption" is the normal process of democracy, because democracy is the tool used by the bourgeois to base society on bureaucracy and commerce. so when civil servants and business men ''collude'', in fact they just enjoy the fruit of their revolutionsThe narrative that somehow bureaucrats are the enemy of the business men is a lie fed to the peasants so that the peasant would side with one team, instead of going back to monarchy.
>>23626752>He was literally wrong about everything. Private capital works by accumulating greater amounts of capital, and when this is applied to land (which is a natural monopoly and operates under monopoly prices where the owner extracts the maximum a renter can pay), you have an ever increasing cost of living while wages do not keep up. That is the true road to serfdom, not the government spending money on social programs which actually transfer value to the average citizen. The Austrian school of economics is one of the most retarded groups to ever exist.All of this is false.It's the bureacrts in their representative democratic republics who created the dogma that inflation must be +2%/year no matter what. This kills the purchasing power of their own currency.In republics there's no room for deflation. And deflation is hated by the bureacrts and businessmen because it gets them poorer but it is beneficial to the population as the purchasing power of the currency improves.Since there's no deflation of the wages and goods, the merchants and bureaucrats decided to globalize the economy and destroy the expensive domestic jobs, while feeding goods made of chinasium to the peasants.This is why the bureaucrats and merchants decided to kill the gold standard for good. Gold is inherently deflationary so it cramps the enrichment of the bureaucratic and mercantile elite in their republics. 50 years alter we have paper money which is wroth less and less. Houses are not affordable, wages are shit. The same elite pushed the peasants to do entrepreneurial stuff to get rich, which make the finances of the population unstable.THey also push for more and more 401k to pay for the pensions. THis amkes the stock amrket go up as passive investing doesn't care about the valuation of a stock. it's just buying everything every month.As soon as the boomers will take their profits, the inflows into passive indexing will crash and the indices will crash too which will destroy the millennials and zoomers.
>>23626930>THis amkes the stock amrket go up as passive investing doesn't care about the valuation of a stock. it's just buying everything every month.and mega caps get even bigger because the market is weighted by capitalization. SO the stock of the FAGMAN gets higher and higher and higher even though the products and the balance sheet of those mega corps do not justify those insane valuations.And with the dogma of the elite to have free paper money for 10 year, it created the whores on youtube who earn 10k.month for doing 1 shitty video/week.
>>23626930If your country encourages its citizens to stuff dollar bills under their mattress because the money will exactly maintain its value or even grow, your economy will be slower and the power of your country will fall behind others. There is a very good reason to keep inflation at around 2%, and it's to encourage spending and investing. In a libertarian world, you would be conquered by China in very short order.
>>23626930I deem currency value stability more positive than deflation. The value of commodities and currencies in the market is not only a standard for setting terms for trade in the present moment, but also in the future. So if you have an unpredictable deflation or inflation going on, people will be more conservative to store or spend money (for inflation and deflation respectively), lend money, engage to pay a mortgage, etc. All of this leads to an artificial economy where individuals can't foresee the consequences of their decisions within the market, hindering innovation and prosperity, which are opposite to financial conservatism i.e having your assets (whether liquid or not) paralysed.
>>23627166Yeah also>the stock market will die out so no investing>no bonds so no lending >the rich will no longer need to make their money produce anything through their companies, once they get enough green paper the shit will just compound simply by leaving it rotting in their bank account
>>23626895>The narrative that somehow bureaucrats are the enemy of the business men is a lie fed to the peasants so that the peasant would side with one team, instead of going back to monarchy.I talked about that before >>23625447>Aren't the interventionist states we have now preoccupied with macroeconomic indexes? They are always willing to save stupid banks for their stupid decisions, at the expense of the individual contribution from taxes.>A libertarian society does not only leave the task of social welfare to individuals but also economics. In the current state of things, there are a myriad of companies that privatise benefits but socialise their losses, whereas in a libertarian society both aspects are privatised.People associate rich people with libertarianism for whatever reason. There are lots of rich merchants now whose net worth depends on their ability to parasite the state by getting, for example, public contracts or getting their debt paid by taxpayers because "otherwise that would be very harming to economy". Those are not models of how a libertarian society should work.
>>23627243It's like some people don't understand the power of Keynesian economics. The business cycle, left to itself, will decimate society with massive booms and busts, and if your society doesn't account for this, you will get mogged by any society which does.
>>23626770>Power tends to centralize, and centralized power corrupts. That's a central thesis in libertarianism, and all of their theorists are aware of it >>23625447 >The state is not an ethereal substance that somehow translates the sum of individual wills into a perfect unified will in the name of public interest, but an organised will comprised of few individuals, following the iron law of oligarchy (Robert Michels)Just because something is unavoidable, it does not mean that it is good or desirable. I'm personally a minarchist because there are some serious implications regarding children rights within anarchism, especially when it comes to parents being able to treat them as objects without any authority above to supervise them. Moreover, given an anarchy or a minarchist state, the state tends to appear or growth respectively, and libertarians are pretty aware of that. Nonetheless, if that happens, citizens should be very aware of it and always suspect of the state subtle intentions to justify its growth, and triggering social uprising if limits are surpassed. What happens today is that people does not care at all if they see crystal clear that the state is growing. The next milestone for civilisation should a general consensus for minarchism, understanding minarchism as the desire for a minimal state because of its inherently violent nature. Each person would then evaluate what they consider "minimal", some would think that public social insurance is compulsory, others wouldn't, some would advocate for public schools, others for a mixed model where parents are given money to choose the private school they prefer, others would prefer fully private school, etcetera; but society as a whole would understand that the state is not benevolent nor desirable in itself.
>>23627322should be*
>>23627322>Just because something is unavoidable, it does not mean that it is good or desirableMy whole position throughout has been that you must have a structure in place with sufficient power AND with sufficient counterbalances in order to account for both the centralization of power and the fact that any system build to decentralize power will, itself, be susceptible to corruption and becoming the new center for power to be concentrated in. In my view, this should be a type of Socialism along the lines of Georgism where the entire structure of government exists and is judged on how well it ensures the base rent of the land is used for the good of all citizens.
>>23623906a lot of people are now commies and pinko anon, nuff said
>>23623906he seems to be forgotten by normies these days, mostly because libertarianism itself has been refuted in practice. You cannot really have a "free" market when states depend on their control of the money supply to maintain power.
