Premier Rock Forum

Skronk wrote:

wiki wrote:Hayek’s central thesis is [a lot of monetarian puffery] ..."The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."

Yeah, Hayek's thesis is soooooo laughable.

Wikipedia's article glosses over the meat of it. There is a lot of gloss. No offense Skronk, but considering your political thesis are usually of the "Government never works, take a look at Stalin" variety it seems to be appeal to the same mindset. Read the book first and see if you still think it means what you think it means.

"The Road To Serfdom" is an extended justification of opportunist economics that had already been decided upon. It came at a time when leftwing economics dominated respectable economic thought, so it had its place at the time of publication. But history has spat in Hayek's face. Hanging on to those ideas in the 2000s is laughable.

In the 1970s, saying "let's abandon Keynesian thought and strike new ground" was acceptable as radicalism goes because there were failures that needed to be accounted for. In 2007, saying the same and citing Hayek as a source is reactionary and contrarian. Now is the time to rebuild and reform, and look at the times in the 20th century when progress was made and see if we can return to them in spirit.

"Collectivism" is an American-right strawman. We can ignore the word whenever we see it.

Again: how do you expect individualist and property rights orientated economics not to lead to the tyranny of one over many? When you're so enraged about it, why do you vocally support policy that seems to protect one mans right to take away the freedoms of another? Because it is in the name of business and not the state?

big_dave wrote:Wikipedia's article glosses over the meat of it. There is a lot of gloss. No offense Skronk, but considering your political thesis are usually of the "Government never works, take a look at Stalin" variety it seems to be appeal to the same mindset. Read the book first and see if you still think it means what you think it means.

I haven't been proven wrong about government yet.

You don't think the mindset that drove someone like Stalin is prevalent in today's politics?

I've yet to track down Hayek's book, but I agree with his argument.

big_dave wrote:"The Road To Serfdom" is an extended justification of opportunist economics that had already been decided upon. It came at a time when leftwing economics dominated respectable economic thought, so it had its place at the time of publication. But history has spat in Hayek's face. Hanging on to those ideas in the 2000s is laughable.

The only laughable thing I see is a vain attempt to justify more government involvement in our lives. Rick brought up a good point that seems to be ignored, namely the answer to solving our problems concerning wealth is more government, when all the while, the rich have still made off like scoundrels.

Big business is hand in hand with big government, and I don't see the solution in escalating government control. It's one in the same when the reigns of power are boiled down to one or the other. There has to be room enough for outside growth or else greater and greater monopolies flourish. Government is a good example of a monopoly.

big_dave wrote:Again: how do you expect individualist and property rights orientated economics not to lead to the tyranny of one over many? When you're so enraged about it, why do you vocally support policy that seems to protect one mans right to take away the freedoms of another? Because it is in the name of business and not the state?

I am not in support, as you say, of protecting 'one man's right to take away anothers freedom'. Maybe I haven't been clear enough on this. If we want this disturbing world of ours to work, I do favor some involvement of government, to set standards about minimum wage, labor laws, and emissions, workers rights, but I'm against this rampant escalation I see going on. I don't see much difference between Corporate control and Government control.

Rick Reuben wrote:Nope. The value of the commodity-money did not collapse. Nixon just ended the US agreement to treat it as commodity-money, and closed the gold window, turning the USD into fiat for our foreign creditors and for our importers ( mostly oil producers in 1973 ). The devaluation of the dollar came after the conversion.

Bretton Woods was ended because it contained a fundamental imbalance that forced the United States to run a deficit (to provide liquidity for gold exchange) and simultaneously maintain a surplus (lest confidence in the currency be eroded). The system could not provide both liquidity and confidence.

Since you hooray for the gold standard, I assume you must have heard about Robert Triffin, who first noticed this problem in the early 1960s.

Skronk wrote:I haven't been proven wrong about government yet.

Aside from schools, roads, communications, energy management, the best run countries in Europe, legally-binding individual rights, national health care, universities, the justice system, etc. etc. etc.

You don't think the mindset that drove someone like Stalin is prevalent in today's politics?

You're presuming Stalin's personal responsibility, that his state of mind was to blame and that you know what that state of mind was. I don't share those presumptions.

I've yet to track down Hayek's book, but I agree with his argument.

You agree with a gob of text from wikipedia when you haven't read the book first.

Skronk: The Man Who Nerbled Himself

The only laughable thing I see is a vain attempt to justify more government involvement in our lives. Rick brought up a good point that seems to be ignored, namely the answer to solving our problems concerning wealth is more government, when all the while, the rich have still made off like scoundrels.

The "fake liberals" and "banker lovers" in this thread aren't justifying more , they are justifying better. They are saying that more or less government is an over simplification at best and soapbox issues at worst. Quantifying the state is foolish. Unless your local census taker sleeps under your bed and the family pet gets the right to vote.

People who say more government come over as pissed off losers bitching that their taxation pays another man's salary. I can't get behind this attitude because it is as alien to me as dudes who masturbate over pictures of children. "Where are these sick fucks getting their ideas? And what is their problem?" is the most I can manage in sympathy.

Big business is hand in hand with big government, and I don't see the solution in escalating government control. It's one in the same when the reigns of power are boiled down to one or the other. There has to be room enough for outside growth or else greater and greater monopolies flourish. Government is a good example of a monopoly.

Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt.

I am not in support, as you say, of protecting 'one man's right to take away anothers freedom'. Maybe I haven't been clear enough on this. If we want this disturbing world of ours to work, I do favor some involvement of government, to set standards about minimum wage, labor laws, and emissions, workers rights, but I'm against this rampant escalation I see going on. I don't see much difference between Corporate control and Government control.

So you agree that more/less government is a stupid way to look at it, and instead we should concentrate on which rights need to be protected and how to ensure quality performance by the government?

This thread has gotten much better, and more pleasant to read, since people stopped yelling at each other.

Some funny, ironic statements, but no abuse.

People are actually having a dialogue.

Salut!

Is that including the "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt" or are we living in a killfile-era?

big_dave wrote:Is that including the "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt" or are we living in a killfile-era?

Yes, that was included. It seemed to emphasize your thoughts, not demean the other person with a barrage of insults.

One thing that has kicked-around on this forum (and recently in this thread) is the idea that American citizens are docile in accepting disastors foisted on them by the government. Especially Bob's repeated comment that Americans have historically never known what is about to hit them.

I have to ask, other than 9/11 and the Depression, what real man-made disastor has happened in the States since the civil war? I don't mean miss-managed Natural disastors like Katrina, but America hasn't had an IRA/UDA, a Weimar or a Benito to contend with. In many ways, a lot American politics comes from the Nation's inexperience with dealing such things at home. I guess a lot of european distaste for conspiracy and hollywood-ised politics comes from this, the same way that movies about bombs and political violence weren't so well received in Ireland and Germany during the 1950s-1980s.

The apocalypse is always around the corner, just up ahead, it is never happening as we speak. Both 9/11 Truth and The War On Terror share attitudes that someone from the UK, with more than a goldfish memory, might find hard to swallow. Let alone someone from Algeria or India.

big_dave wrote:You agree with a gob of text from wikipedia when you haven't read the book first.

Skronk: The Man Who Nerbled Himself

I agree with the argument. Where's the nerble? Once I find a copy, I'll obviously explore his points further. You don't read a blurb on a book jacket and see if it 'tickles your fancy'?

big_dave wrote:

Big business is hand in hand with big government, and I don't see the solution in escalating government control. It's one in the same when the reigns of power are boiled down to one or the other. There has to be room enough for outside growth or else greater and greater monopolies flourish. Government is a good example of a monopoly.

Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt.

Classic-fucking-Dave. You want to explain how it's "Buuuuuuuuuullllllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttt"?

You should really start to reply with something serious, or stop wondering where the civilized discussions go.

big_dave wrote:So you agree that more/less government is a stupid way to look at it, and instead we should concentrate on which rights need to be protected and how to ensure quality performance by the government?

No, I don't agree. My point is you cannot separate the good government that helps, and the government that reduces individual rights to shit. They're both facets of the same institution, worldwide. It's like having your cake, and eating it too.

big_dave wrote:The apocalypse is always around the corner, just up ahead, it is never happening as we speak.

Who says we aren't in the midst of one right now, or even well beyond one of the worst?