It is always good to remember what neoliberals mean when they talk about freedom and democracy.It's not what what most people think, and neither are "Making the world safe for democracy," and "Defending freedom around the world," which equate neoliberal capitalism with freedom and democracy. A Pinochet? No problem. The market is "free." The people? Not so much.
Naked Keynesianism
Hayek, Freedom, Democracy and the Pinochet Regime
Matias Vernengo | Associate Professor of Economics, University of Utah
27 comments:
Vernengo is such an astonishingly dense cement-head. No wonder he's an economics professor.
http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/08/as-ive-said-for-forty-years-people-do.html
I suppose he thinks he's buried the Austrians and libertarians. I guess he would, seeing how he is.
Needless to say, Hayek did not speak for every classical liberal. It isn't hard to find prominent libertarian individuals and institutions that condemned Pinochet's government while it was in power: Murray Rothbard denounced it fiercely, for example, and the Cato Institute published a series of angry exposés. And that tradition of criticism has continued into the present. Nonetheless, many myths about the dictatorship still circulate, mostly among conservatives but also sometimes among libertarians. I periodically hear it claimed, for example, that Pinochet was a reluctant ruler who stepped down from power of his own free will, a Cincinnatus who did what he must to set the stage for freedom. (Here's George Reisman: "General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits after voluntarily giving up his dictatorship.") In fact, when Pinochet lost a plebiscite that he had expected to win, the alleged Cincinnatus reacted by ordering his armed forces to impose martial law. His dictatorship ended because they refused to obey him.
Yet the legend persists. And it persists in part because of that fantasy of a benign temporary dictatorship—a "liberal dictator," in Hayek's phrase.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/17/the-mad-dream-of-a-libertarian-dictator
Rothbard was a racist who despised democracy and advocated police brutality and torture.
Bob,
y's got a point there... remember Cain was led to kill his little brother when pushed... thus "violating the non-aggression principle" blah blah blah ....
rsp,
Matt, how is Cain relevant here?
I see these Libertarians as "rebels" y.
Cain being the first "rebel", who would not subject himself to God, etc..
God wanted a sacrifice that involved the shedding of blood, Abel raised livestocks (lamb) and offered them while Cain raised feedstocks and offered them (vegetables).
So Abel's offering was acceptable to God while Cain's was not. And He indicated this to Cain.
Cain offered feedstocks and they were rejected by God Who apparently wanted the shedding of blood.
I dont think Cain wanted to kill something as he saw his own mortality in the form of the livestock and thus came up with the original "non-aggression principle".
Perhaps Cain didnt want to be treated that way (killed) so he didnt want to treat something else (livestock) that way either... perhaps not unreasonable.
Cain didnt want to kill anything and perhaps I can see his point... but God pushed him on this to the point where imo Cain killed his brother instead.
As if to say: "Here! If You want blood, You got it!"
God asked him where his brother was and Cain said he didnt know (he wasn't lying, he really didnt know imo and that's perhaps why he didnt want to kill anything in the first place). Cain replied that he was not his 'brother's keeper', implying (correctly) that God was.
It's as if he is saying to God: "I don't know where he is, You tell me!"
VERY rebellious, so this goes back a long way.
But exhibiting how ultimately, these rebels will eventually resort to a violation of their own "non-aggression principle" when pushed...
rsp,
It's not what I think Bob, it's a logical fact that derives from the capital debates. The algebra is not to difficult.
Matt, 'Cain and Abel' is just a story, and your interpretation of it is highly idiosyncratic to say the least. I can't see any relevance to be honest.
"I see these Libertarians as "rebels"
I don't. I just think right-wing "libertarianism" is dumb.
If Mr. Vernengo can refute Austrian analysis with some algebra, by all means show us the algebra.
Matt, I think that the Eve-serpent, and Cain and Abel stories go to the crux of it, as well as the non-biblical Satan "I will not serve" story. It's basically freedom to pursue self-interest over following the dictates of authority.
These are profound teaching stories that bring out essential aspects of the human condition. Many spiritual teachers have observed that Satan is the symbol for ego, and God for universality. "Sin" is separation of the ego from God in the sense of choosing a particular good (personal satisfaction or "utility") over universal good, which is reflected in the community through the rule of law. According to spiritual teachers, the basis of the universal law is love. :God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." 1 JN 4:16 NIV
This is why radical Libertarianism and both normative religion and perennial wisdom are orthogonal rather than parallel and no amount of rationalizing will ever make them parallel. It's also a reason that most who hold Libertarian and Objectivist views follow "reason" rather than authority, reason being based on assumptions over which there is choice. The choice is to make self-authority the primary value and norm, and "reason" is employed as a tool to rationalize it.
Right Tom I look at Cain as following his human "reason" rather than just simply being subject... (ie Abraham sacrificing Isaac, etc..)
Seems like this "conflict" has been going on for quite a while ;)
y,
Sometimes I want to give Bob a break as he just doesnt think the human is capable of righteous rule imo... and he can cite plenty of historic examples of injustice/brutality etc... hard to argue with him there (for me)
so he will say it is "funny money" rather than engage... he doesnt even want to get into it he thinks it is a waste of time we (humans) will never figure authority out ... same with the guy from the UK the other day who was afraid of "tyranny" etc...
but I notice he (Bob) never says "We're out of money!"... which is the "gold standard" of moron statements these days so to speak ;)
It's like over at MR they brought up recently perhaps we can just put fiscal on some sort of "auto pilot" which I dont think is near optimum, we need flexibility or as Roger can see "options" or an ability to "explore our options"...
Bob is saying "forget authority it will never work" ... "turn it over to gold" or "economic calculation" or "private property" anything but 'authority'...
to me I see this going all the way back to Cain and Abel...
That said, I'd like to see us be able to give 'authority' a chance once again... still looks like it up in the air for now...
We have the system in place but no one in the control positions who believe it or can see it... we need both.
rsp,
"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground....
... And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
Where did Cain's wife come from?
Matt, the question is whose authority and on what basis?
It's just radical Libertarians and Objectivists that assert complete self-sovereignty and reject the rule of law in a community that determines the law. But this raises the question of the tyranny of the majority and so forth. It gets complicated really quickly, as the history of social and political thought shows.
Even the simplest authoritarian and libertarian approaches have issues. In a theocracy, the question becomes whose interpretation of scripture is definitive and why becomes the issue. In a pure Libertarian or Objectivists society how is the non-aggression rule decided in controversies and who determines enforcement in putative violations. Once the fundamental questions arise, others follow from them.
In the end, if there is to be an end rather than dogs chasing tails and turtles all the way down, then there has to a stopping point, i.e., some norm taken as definitive. But there are no relevant criteria that are absolute or even logically or empirically compelling in a universal way so to elicit universal agreement.
Where did Cain's wife come from?
Someone always has to ask embarrassing questions. :)
The ancient myths (myth simply means story) were teaching stories. Education was narrative in those days. The teaching stories were taught to children who would take them to be true, like we tell small children that babies come from heaven since they can't understand the real story. But the myths are not false but metaphorical. As one matures, one is supposed to explore the metaphors to discover the mysteries they contains through personal revelation. This is the path of self-discovery embedded in every ancient religion. It is said that Aristotle, who is recognized as the founder of modern discursive thinking, spent his last days "contemplating the myths."
Tom,
I dont think we understand this word 'exousia' which is often translated into English as "authority" in the English translations... it (to me) looks like an abstract concept not "a person"...
This was touched upon by LK in his post a couple of weeks ago...
(FD: I'm 'Authoritarian' via the "Political Compass" test so caveat emptor)
I am led to think we (humans) can get it done here on earth with righteousness if we have the correct view of this "authority" or perhaps better "exousia"... though this correct view still seems missing.
But we seem closer to this than we have ever been in a long time as we now have the system in place but just not the correct personnel it seems....
rsp,
"The ancient myths (myth simply means story) were teaching stories"
The teaching being, in this case, that incest is OK.
The ancient Greeks believed that all humans were descended from incest, as, apparently, do Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Either that, or the Bible just fails to mention the creation of another human pair, besides Adam and Eve.
Funny that this doesn't get mentioned that much.
"the myths are not false but metaphorical"
Not much of a metaphor: "The second man had sex with his sister. And that's where we all come from".
Yes, in Rig Veda 3.31.1-2 Bramha is said to beget with his daughter. Where did is daughter come from? Who is Bramha? Interestingly, another name for Brahma is Ka. Ka means "who." There is a verse in Reg Veda that says, If Ka (who as Creator) doesn't know, ka (who) does? So the question becomes, Who is who?
Reading the myths of another culture is instructive since the are new material instead of material that one has grown up with. Many if not most of the myths are bizarre. Were these other cultures just primitive or crazy? Or is there something beneath the surface?
Modern researchers among whom Jung and Campbell as some of the best known looked into this and found a rich symbology embedded in the teaching stories, which were not intended literally by their authors or else the authors were simply poet that were unknowingly insightful.
For example, there is the story of a shaman that attended a theological conference. One of the participants observed to the shaman that his culture had never developed a theology as the West had. The shaman smiled and responded, "We dance and drum."
But why make a story "as a metaphor" which is so obviously incorrect? There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning if it leads to the conclusion that all humans must 'logically' be descended from one original pair.
To me it demonstrates that they simply weren't able to understand how a species can emerge into being over time, "out of the ether".
From the Rig Veda
Quote:
In the beginning in the state of flood there was neither matter nor non-matter, neither being nor non-being. At that time there was neither the sky nor the space nor anything beyond . There was no life anywhere nor any source of pleasure. What was there ? And where ? What was the power ? At that time even the solemn water did not exist. There was neither death nor immortality, neither night nor any notion of the day. At that time only one, i.e. Brahma, imbued with energy in his nature was there and nothing else existed. Darkness was hidden inside darkness and the existence was unknown. With the exertion of its own tapas, heat-energy, out of nothing emerged Brahma without external cause or action. This caused the conception of creation and the sages realized the cause of matter in non-matter. Who knows the entire truth and who can speak about this creation ? What are the causative factors of this creation ? The gods have originated after the creation. Who knows the one from which this world has got created. It is not known how this existence has come up. He only knows the one who has unveiled it. Does he bear it or not ? It is not known whether the lord up above knows it or not.
y, they are only "incorrect" to us. For instance, some anthropologists were observing a primitive tribe that lived in a circular arrangement of dwelling, which is a common phenomenon in primitive tribes for a variety of reasons explainable in our terms although their explanation is somewhat different. This tribe was distinguished by believing that a pole stuck in the ground at the center of the circle is the center of the universe. And they are nomadic, so they move the center of the universe wherever they go. They see nothing illogical in this and perplexed as to why the anthropologists do.
Now on one level this is nonsensical but on another it contains a deep truth.
What Jung, Campbell and other point out is that myths are about the structure of consciousness, and myths are in surprising agreement about this when analyzed by psychologists and social scientists.
Indeed, even so-called developed societies with advanced scientific knowledge retain the humanities, because a whole lot of people realize that some truths can only be conveyed poetically, where "poet" is understood in the ancient sense of one possessed of a "muse.
Then there is the vast mystical literature that extends back in the mists of prehistory, like the quote that Clonal provided from the Rig Veda, to the present day, like Meher Baba's God Speaks, which explains that quote through a contemporary discursive conceptual model without referring to it specifically.
Meher Baba explicated the inner meaning of the myth of Adam and Eve here.
BTW, the Hebrew term adam is cognate with the Canaanite root meaning "man" in the generic sense, as we speak of humanity as "mankind" or simply "man."
Meher Baba constructed his own creation myth for children. Here it is, along with a side by side explication.
But these are only conceptual models that convey some limited understanding of the unlimited. The spiritual journey is the progressive unveiling in experience of the involutionary path toward realizing one one's true nature.
Clonal,
Good stuff!
Sounds just like the OT to me... I think many humans across different cultures are given to understand our common history in this way... nice...
y,
I believe the OT is full of strange stuff like that in view of what we view today as "normal"... IIRC, Lot had children with his own daughters at one point! Agree 'Weird-o-rama'...
Incest looks like it was no big deal until the Mosaic Law forbid it, and even then that only applied to the House of Israel so it probably continued here in the nations for centuries...
But of course now we don't do that anymore... now if we could only get rid of the "metal-lovers" among us! .... oh well with everyday there comes fresh hope....
In my view, even if you are not given to believe the scriptures are true, I can tell you are a very righteous person in any regard... you are getting that righteousness from Someone imo, it's working for you...
rsp,
Matt Franko,
A friend of mine recently asked this on Facebook:
"Christian Friends: Can anyone send me a link to websites that analyze the Gospel of Matthew (especially Chapter 23)?"
Have anything interesting/useful?
JK,
FD: I'm waaaay out of Orthodoxy... so caveat emptor...
But if I had to choose a favorite scripture that one would be way up there...
He really tears the corrupt leadership a new one there you can really see His humanity come out as His indignation level must have been on blast that day... Calls them all stupid and blind, hypocrites, and offspring of vipers...
But beyond that indignation part there is some pretty substantial economic information in there...
Here is one:
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! who are saying, 'Whoever should be swearing by the temple, it is nothing; yet whoever should be swearing by the gold of the temple is owing.'
17 Stupid and blind! for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that hallows the gold?
18 And, 'Whoever should be swearing by the altar, it is nothing; yet whoever should be swearing by the approach present upon it is owing.'
19 Stupid and blind! for which is greater, the approach present, or the altar that is hallowing the approach present?
Looks like the gold lovers were afoul of the Lord here...
Here's another that really strengthens me as far as being motivated to advocate for economic justice:
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are taking tithes from the mint and the dill and the cumin, and leave the weightier matters of the law, judging and mercy and faith. Now these it was binding for you to do, and not leave those.
24 Blind guides! straining out a gnat, yet swallowing a camel!
Here is the only place where He indicates that there was a portion of the law that God considered to be "weightier" than others, and that the leadership had dropped the ball in that area... you can take an inventory of portions of the law that they were enforcing, and this would include the portions that included the divine services to God Himself.
So they were doing the things that glorified God such as the operations of His temple, keeping the festivals, making their approach presents to God at the altar, etc... But here the Lord reveals that God considered those portions of the law to be less important to Him than those other portions of the law that they were NOT enforcing.
They were not enforcing the economic portions of the law (e.g. see Lazarus); the portions that He put in the law that were there to make sure the house of Israel maintained just and righteous relationships with each other, the "macroeconomics" (weightier-house-law) if you will ...
This is a very conciliatory revelation that shows us how He would rather have had them treat each other justly and righteously than even receive divine service from them. Like parents not wanting to see their own children at each other's throats...
But that was then, now I'm afraid I have to switch over to cite Paul (my Apostle) on the true "savings" that is going on in this universe for us all today:
"10 For if, being enemies, we were conciliated to God through the death of His Son, much rather, being conciliated, we shall be saved in His life." Romans 5:10
He's not mad at ANY of us ... be conciliated to God!... because He is conciliated to you through the death of His Son.
He is not requiring us to go through anything here He didn't require His own Son to go through.
rsp,
MF,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I sent what you just wrote to the person that was asking.
Here's some addition information if you want to weigh in any more. The person asking wrote this (in response to someone else commenting):
"Basically, I am trying to convince some folks that I will be able to discuss hypocrisy as the main topic of my dissertation without "just calling all my informants hypocrites". Part of the way I am doing this is demonstrating that the concept is an important religious concept in the Abrahamic monotheisms, but that it is NOT exclusive to Islam. Rather, accusing others of hypocrisy and defending against calls of hypocrisy are simply parts of the socialization process by which the group reins in individual practitioners towards an accepted norm. Thus, it is an essential aspect of the pluralization of religious understanding because it is a marker by which people can condemn and condone innovative practice."
Post a Comment