Defending Capitalism: Ayn Rand vs. Hayek

Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 2 months ago to Economics
166 comments | Share | Flag

Hayek argues that the reason we need freedom is because of our ignorance or really the limits of the power of reason. Without this limitation, there would be no justification for freedom.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    She had great respect for science and its value, but recognized that she was not a scientist, and knew that science cannot be based on rationalization, so she didn't speculate or try to argue technical matters. That isn't a cop out or emotional intuition rejecting reason. Her philosophical ideas on the nature of man as a rational being are accessible to anyone, without technical knowledge of biology.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No he was not. You have only read his books on economics, but he was very clear about his epistemology. He did not think Natural Rights were based on reason, they were the result of a cultural evolution.

    As usual you comment from ignorance and then when it is pointed out you persist instead of learning something.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "why would there be little case for liberty?" Because an individual that could know all wants and all impacts of supply/demands would provide for everybody. Remember, Hayek was merely talking about economics and specifically refuting socialism (and by implication communism). This was merely an argument against centralized economic planning and has nothing at all to do with religion. Those of "you" who take this statement out of that context misconstrue not only this specific item, but you use that misconstruing as the basis to malign all of Hayek and all other Austrian's. You are wrong. You have been told so numerous times. The reality of what Hayek was conveying in that statement has been explained numerous times. This is not merely my opinion or interpretation of Hayek. You refuse to understand. And yet you call me stubborn. Sheesh.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Freedom requires certain ethics in order to have a definition. Natural rights are not just floating abstractions meaning something different to each person. Natural rights are defined. Murder is immoral anywhere and everywhere in the world. stoning to death an adulterer is immoral. You have not defined what the purpose of Ethics is in the first place. This is a fail of libertarians, due to the shortcuts they like to take which leaves us here with this comment of yours "All moral codes *ARE* ultimately matters of taste" premises such as this one lead to contradictory thinking.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -4
    Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All moral codes *ARE* ultimately matters of taste, and freedom means each person gets to choose his own, whether YOU consider it a rational choice or not. You're wrong about this topic no matter how many times you re-spam your position, and so was AR, though at least she was more tolerant about it than you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well that was a cop out. Her emotions and "intuition" over-rode her reason on that one (based on the statements she made regarding man)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Understanding the objective-subjective-intrinsic trichotomy is very important, here and elsewhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Political freedom cannot be establishd as good, let alone defended against hundreds of years of bad but widespread philosophy, by trying to base it on a negative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand had great respect for Mises as an economist, but rejected his tendency to rationalism and his utilitarianism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no such thing as "perfect knowledge" as an unattainable "ideal" requiring some kind of infinite omniscience. It makes no sense in epistemology and has nothing to do with justifying political freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yep. In fact I would go farther. I think you ethics is built on the language and idea of evolution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is best for a person depends on identifying his nature as a rational being, not whatever he says it is, which is subjectivism. It takes an enormous amount of work to develop the science of ethics, based on the nature of man, and how to apply it.

    Political philosophy depends on ethics so that both are dependent on identifying the nature of man and its role in his choices. The a-philosophical libertarians insist on starting with an arbitrary premise based on feeling.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What do you disagree with Ayn Rand on concerning evolution? She said she didn't know enough about the science to argue for or against it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Where did I say I wasn 't well read? I do a fair amount of reasearching to assist my husband who is writing a book on the source of economics growth. I was mainly critical of the joking and interested in the argument which you did finally get around to making.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You and I think a lot alike (on some things, anyway). I did the same thing once - called it the "Charlie Knob" as the operator that insisted that he had to make the adjustment was Charlie. He took great pride in showing how his direct adjustment "improved" the process output, even though we all knew that his knob affected nothing.

    As a process improvement professional, I've found that the human element is 50% or more of all change efforts. I just finished a gig that was not fully successful. The management refused to provide the leadership needed to ensure the changes identified continued. Thus the operators were allowed to go back to their prior behavior, even after they and management had agreed that the revised methods were better. Alas, you cannot change another human being, they must decide to change themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie, I don't necessarily disagree with you, particularly as related to motivating humans. But I see it as a total system of complimentary interaction. I can still remember one example--shunting out a variable resistor in a control panel with a fixed resistance, but leaving the variable resistor in place on the surface of the control panel and letting the operator believe that he was still affecting the operation of the machine (a 5 stand aluminum cold mill with recently added computerized controls). Gained 700ft/m taking the human out of that particular control loop yet convincing him that I'd fixed the gremlin in the machine. Gained efficiency and gained a friend.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo