"...a system that propagates a system that limits availability of knowledge to the few."

that makes sense to you? IP is only one area of disagreement. Would this argument be relevant if we agreed we all had a vested interest in capitalism? If we agree we do and wanted to keep it or get closer to "true" capitalism, wouldn't it be worth it to make the best possible moral case for it in the first place? and, in making the best moral case for it, could we agree that collectivist arguments would not be the best evidence in supporting capitalism? or? If you want to make a collectivist defense of capitalism make it, admit it and point to it openly.

That makes sense for sure.

What is best for a dictator? By what standard do you decide? What are property rights? Where do they come from?

I have not misinterpreted Hayek, you have not looked into what he said about epistemology and ethics.

The libertarian begins by accepting David Friedman's postulate that "what's best for a person," at least if he's a competent adult, is defined as what he says it is, because ever to believe otherwise would be an outrageous insult and a denial of that person's sovereignty.

That is our starting point. To suggest that it should be proved from other statements is putting the cart before the horse. I believe AR was wrong in that respect.

I also believe that Hayek agreed with me on this, and that dbhalling has misinterpreted Hayek.

Yes, his insight into the self organizing function of price in a free market was great, but it was no a true defense of freedom. Adam Smith's insight into self interest as a spontaneous organizing methods is similar. He was not defined rational self interest (see his book on ethics), he was tolerating it as useful.

Hayek did write on epistemology and ethics and he was clear that he was not just saying that knowledge is localized, he fundamentally does not think reason can be used to justify natural rights or freedom. I have provided references to his papers on point.

Freedom and Capitalism can only survive under an epistemology system of reason and A is A, there is no short cut and Hayek's arguments do more damage in the long run.

Thanks for a reasoned argument. You position would have been mine 10-15 years ago, but Hayek did write on epistemology and your interpretation of what he was saying is not consistent with his other writings.

I used to count them as allies to, but several things kept nagging at me. First of all let me be clear I am more committed to defending reason and think it is more important than just being pro-free market. One of things that bugged me was this idea that wealth was created by mindlessly giving people what they wanted. The result of this inquiry is my next non-fiction book. Real per-capita increases in wealth are created by increasing our level of technology, which requires the highest use of man’s mind not blindly giving people what they want. Two was the clear adherence to religion and mysticism by so many in the Austrian Economics movement. My inquiry in this area has shown it is because the Austrian School is not built on reason, not built on A is A, and not built on an objective ethics. A perfect ground for mystics. Third was the irrational attack on patents. Why would a group that pretends to care about free markets, the constitution, and admires the economic history of the US turn its back on patents? What I found is Austrian’s have no real interest in the Constitution, Natural Rights, John Locke or American history. This is why people like Robbie are attracted to Austrian Economics.

The modern Austrian movement is wrong on a number of points: 1) they do not understand property rights, without which you cannot understand capitalism. Their position plays right into the hands of the socialists. 2) They do not understand fractional reserve banking and constantly conflate it with a central bank. The logical conclusion of their position is to eliminate banks, stocks, bonds and all financial instruments. This is not only anti-freedom it is a disaster economically. 3) They are just dead wrong on patents. Their hostility does not end with the property right, but they attack the achievement of inventors with arguments that boil down to the idea that no one ever invents anything.

THE AUSTRIAN MOVEMENT IS NOT A FRIEND OF CAPITALISM, FREEDOM, OR REASON.

One thing that all should keep in mind about Rand is that she was in my opinion a genius. Had she wanted to study economics she would have excelled. She was well versed in it and as such she was qualified to present her thoughts based upon her observations. When she was critical of someone such as Mises she gave her reasons. She simply did not say oh he is wrong. One of the aspects of this forum is the number of people who chose to try and knock Rand down. That would be tantamount to shooting a battle ship with a pea shooter.

Hello wiggys,
I see no disagreement. I am particularly fond of Bastiat also. That said: I have found nuggets of wisdom among the others too.
I do not see, or did not mean to convey any arguments against Rand? Quite the contrary.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Rand was perfect? . some men think that
Salma Hayek is perfect! -- j

http://media.photobucket.com/user/al7n6a...

yessir! I recorded it, and will give out copies to
family & friends! -- j

Db, Hayek makes the point that you don't have to know everything about something before you "reason" and make a decision. There are many matters that don't concern all of us to know the why for everything. The price system provides the necessary information to make a choice whether you value that good/service at that specific price. So reason is limited in the sense you can't possibly know all you need to know about something. With the division of labor, people specialize and yes knowledge gets "decentralized" and that's good. Also Hayek makes the point that we are all planners. So the question is do you want planning to be centralized by the government or do you want planning to be dealt with on an individual level? Of course, Hayek prefers the latter. So maybe that planning idea gets you worked up too thinking he's a socialist. I read from many great economists and by the way, Hayek is not the only Austrian out there fyi. I don't agree with Hayek on everything or anyone else but he has many great contributions to the Austrian School. Adam Smith came up with the invisible hand concept and I think he's spot on with that but he also believes in the labor theory of value (which is a Marxist view of labor). But I still don't hate and despise Adam Smith. I appreciate the good things he has contributed. Db, with all do respect it seems you're quick to hate. I think Rand has contributed lots of great ideas and that's why I'm on this site and I love reading her books. It seems if I were to be like you I should hate Rand for being an atheist when I'm a Christian.

Sir, all of the arguments against Rand are for naught. as the owner of a business that actually does business with the government I have seen how government does not work. a government employee other wise known as a civil servant gets an idea of how they can improve a product and they write a solicitation for information on whether or not industry can actually create what they have dreamt up. having read many of the requests for information and silly me I have taken the time to present to the dreamers all of the reasons why what they are asking for cannot be accomplished. it falls on deaf ears because these dreamers are representing the government and they do not want ever to say to their boss it can't be done. the point being that collective thought is a jumble. Rand would be far better at responding to your comments than I am. As for the list of names you do Bastiat a disservice when you group him with other economists. all of those you have mentioned must have read him and if not they are at a disadvantage.

this is wonderful, Dale;;; Thank You! . the insight
which AR developed into human nature continues
to make me love her more every day!!! -- j

Hello dbhalling,
I too believe that Rand had a better argument and foundation for the superiority of Capitalism. Admittedly, I have read only two of Hayek's books (The Road to Serfdom & The Constitution of Liberty) but I never got that he was anti-reason or that our freedom depended upon our limitations. My understanding of his argument based on ignorance was quite narrow. I understood him to mean that since no one was omniscient, our economy was not static and it had too many changing variables for any one man to comprehend, constantly collate and account for, then the invisible hand and free markets evolving naturally, were the only reasonable solution. If all economic metrics were static perhaps the economy could be understood fully and some sort of central control would be feasible, but that is not reality.

From an argument of morality no one has done a better job than Rand. The argument from Hayek was one of human fallibility and limit. He argued for the same policies, but from a different tack. When Hayek said that there were limits to the power of reason could it simply have been a poor choice of words? when what he was trying to say was that there are limits to any one man's or any groups capacity... of knowledge... of ability to comprehend such a complicated and changing dynamic system? To me this was simply an argument based on the premise that central control was not feasible because of the multitude of factors and shortcomings of men, not of logic or "reason." It is true that some of his arguments/comments are quite questionable, but the total context points to satisfactory policies and outcome.

From the article: “In a way, this is an argument from ignorance: the planners can’t know enough to issue the right decrees. In its simpler form, it’s the argument that you can’t force a person to do what’s best for him because only he can know what’s best for him, which is an argument one often hears from conservatives.” I believe the interpretation--- “In its simpler form…” is reading more into it than intended. Also, it is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument of recognition of human limitation. Nothing more... It is a pragmatic argument, related to recognition of the laws of nature, but it is also true.

It would be quite something to hear Hayek’s rebuttal to these criticisms were he alive today. Perhaps he may even agree and change his mind... or choice of words. Sometimes meanings or emphasis not intended can be ascribed.

Either way, for me, specifically on matters of economics, when one is a proponent of the same policies regardless of their basis for support, I count them among allies, not enemies. Now, as for arguments regarding reason, foundation, or morality, Rand and I may disagree with Hayek, but I will not condemn an entire body of work that still fights the collectivist, etatist common enemy. I would encourage people to read and understand that every word is not "gospel", that there may be better arguments, even disagreements, but then, who is perfect? I would also recommend the writings of many others on economic matters (Smith, Friedman, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Sowell, Williams, etc.), but I would urge too that the crown belongs to Rand when it comes to capitalism. In my opinion no economic education would be complete without her contributions... No argument more moral. If Hayek was ones only input I would be concerned. Rand would certainly disagree based on ethics alone. She was determined for all to appreciate a superior moral foundation. Hayek came up with fine economic policies, but as a philosopher... maybe not so much.

I am presently half way through Mises’ Socialism… and I see a few fallacies within that I believe Rand would also have disagreement with, even though she recommended his work…

Sure, there are areas of disagreement, but in the wide view, the areas of agreement are more important and by reinforcing them with more voices, they become even more powerful.

Still it is a very interesting exchange and perspective worth consideration. From the comments presented, I see I will have to read more.
Well, for what it is worth that is my two cents.
Regards,
O.A.

My complaint with Hayek (his understanding of the price system as a self organizing principle is great) is that ultimately he hold view that are more consistent with socialists or post-modernist than with Locke, Rand, and the Enlightenment. He thinks reason is limited at best, he believes knowledge is a collective process. He also believes that ethics is a communal consensus and therefore he is a moral relativist.

I don't read db's comments that way at all. He seems to be saying that the Hayek quote exposes Hayek's view that the virtue of capitalism is based upon its role in allocating resources and effort where perfect knowledge is absent whereas Rand sees capitalism justified because of it unique moral status. But, of course, db can speak for himself.

thanks ja! I am getting that!

Perhaps I misunderstood the underlying point. I agree his basis should be examined if the purpose is to explain the distinctions between Hayek and Rand, showing the evolution of the moral basis of freedom (which probably goes back more to Bastiat than either Rand or Hayek).

Rand certainly read Hayek in great detail. Specifically, Rand read The Road to Serfdom. How do I know this? Because her detailed notes on the book are preserved in the very interesting volume entitled Ayn Rand's Marginalia (Robert Mayhew, ed.) which contains her handwritten comments on over twenty authors. Spoiler alert: She doesn't like Hayek at all and calls him "poison."

After I have read the book i will be able to judge for myself.

it is not the point of the post to to suggest that Hayek did not make pro-freedom arguments. The question is why. his justification. Db has given several examples. all I'm reading in this post are people saying he's mis-interpreted. How is he being mis-interpreted? what do you think these several examples are referring to? How are his justifications different from Rand's explanations for a moral basis for Capitalism? These kinds of questions could be very important to students of Economics and philosophy. for instance does your property right limit my freedom and how much?

Seems that way to me also - at least from the single quotation.
Omniscient people do not exist - so the world / reality with little case for liberty is a non-existent one also (NOT ours).
Therefore is seems to be MORE of an argument FOR liberty than against it - but really a pretty useless description of what a non-existent utopia may be like (everything thing/action throughout eternity already understood ahead of time BY EVERYONE....pretty sure that is not us )

these lines are not taken out of context, in fact they are summations of arguments. coining phrases such as "cultural evolution" to explain how we gain knowledge is hard to explain in a non-damning way. I can see progressives loving that phrase. your rights are determined through "cultural evolution." These concepts must be fought in libertarianism. These are crucial differences between the two camps and philosophically important.

I want to read more of Hayek's "Constitution", but based on other Hayek writings, I think its Hayek's observation of reality, not an argument against use of reason. Taking a few lines out of context (compared to my previous reading of Hayek) here is like saying that Rand is urging a general strike by reading parts of AS. I have to look at the entire work first.