Hayek hated freedom and democracy

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Covertibility, Jul 9, 2012.

  1. Hayek von Pinochet

    For instance, Hayek—writing to The Times in 1978 and explicitly invoking Pinochet by name—noted that under certain “historical circumstances,” an authoritarian government may prove especially conducive to the long-run preservation of liberty: There are “many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under many democracies.”


    [Hayek] noted that if “Strauss (who I met during a reception in Chile briefly)” had been “attacked for his support for Chile he deserves to be congratulated for his courage.” [Franz Josef Strauss was a right-wing German politician, who had visited Chile in 1977 and met with Pinochet. His views were roundly repudiated by both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats in Germany. Hayek apparently wanted to help Strauss become chancellor of Germany.]


    Though Hayek’s 1981 interviews with El Mercurio have attracted much attention, scholars have ignored El Mercurio’s coverage of Hayek’s initial visit to Chile in 1977. In particular, El Mercurio notes that Hayek—quoted as saying that Chile’s efforts to develop and reform its economy provided “an example at the global level” (1977: 27)—had met with Pinochet: “At the end of his visit . . . Hayek . . . was received by President Augusto Pinochet. He [Hayek] told reporters that he talked to Pinochet about the issue of limited democracy and representative government. . . . He said that in his writings he showed that unlimited democracy does not work because it creates forces that in the end destroy democracy. He said that the head of state listened carefully and that he had asked him to provide him with the documents he had written on this issue.”


    According to Hayek, Pinochet had requested copies of Hayek’s writings (“documents”) explaining why unlimited democracy would inevitably lead to the destruction of democracy (1977). Consequently, Hayek asked Charlotte Cubitt (his secretary from February 1977 until his death in 1992) to send Pinochet a draft of Hayek’s ‘A Model Constitution’ (Cubitt 2006: 19). Importantly, Hayek’s chapter—‘A Model Constitution’ (1979b: 105–127)—provides a three-page discussion of the conditions under which the adoption of Emergency Powers (124–126) and the suspension of democracy are supposedly justified: The “basic principle of a free society . . . [“the coercive powers of government are restricted to the enforcement of universal rules of just conduct”] . . . may . . . have to be temporarily suspended when the long-run preservation of that order [the free society] is itself threatened” (1979b: 124).


    When Hayek visited Chile in 1981 he “took time off from his official commitments to walk around and see for himself whether people were cheerful and content. He told me that it was the sight of many sturdy and healthy children that had convinced him.”


    As Hayek notes, “democracy needs ‘a good cleaning’ by strong governments.”


    The Pinochet junta “enacted a new constitution in September 1980. . . . The constitution was not only named after Hayek’s book The Constitution of Liberty, but also incorporated significant elements of Hayek’s thinking.”


    Don't believe everything you read in an economics book, be it models, laws or people who believe in free markets and freedom and democracy, because, odds are, in reality, quite the opposite takes place.
  2. Another hack job lacking context or cogent thought. It belongs in a "Wasteland" thread if there's such a thing here at ET.

    Between the two choices at the time (Pinochet and Allende), Pinochet was the lesser of two evils. His policies led eventually to a freer, better Chile while Allende wanted a Castro-style dictatorship. You were right to support him if those were your only two choices.
  3. The Austrian school is the attempt by oligarchs to re-establish feudalism. smashing the nation state leaving the next higher power faction (them) to determine society. Power is going to manifest itself in one form or another be it government, robber barons, finance capital. Their will always be central planing the only question is who's doing the planing.

    Power, politically organizes itself while sabotaging organizing of others. creating power centers and networks. The Mont Pelerine Society is no exception. founded and funded by open neo-feudalists like otto von Hapsburg, Walter Lippmann, and their ilk. In an attempt to roll back civilization to the era of rule by private wealth which turns heredity then to an aristocracy. There is no wounder why the P.T. Barnum of economics, Von Mises was a fascist sympathizer and Hayek pro genocidal dictator. But you won't get much love from this crowd most are dupes of neo- feudalists.
  4. Lipman generated serious income as a stock tout (over and above his "journalism") according to an old time Wall Street guy i knew pretty well.

  5. It's called divide & conquer. If you can get the plebes to agree with you to destroy the guv, you've got em by the short & curlies: democracy, where everyone is equal, is the powerful's worst enemy, which is why you see the duped wannabees that infest this place railing against it. One of these shit-for-brains actually advocates actively for only allowing those with property past some certain amount to vote; the other stupes/dupes of course agree with the fool. (Check The Republic, for instance, where Plato, heir to a nice cushy estate, advocates destruction of Athenian democracy, the purest kind that ever existed outside a New England town hall, in favor of rule by "the wise".)
    They desperately wannabe just like the big guys. The big guys, meantime, sit there laughing at their over-the-top stupidity in re government power; it must be mildly embarrassing to them to see their stuff parroted by these 5k bazillionaires.
  6. What a crock. The "oligarchs" have nothing to do with the Austrians. They were shunned in the 1930s while Keynes (who advised the gov't to do exactly as they pleased) won the day. Of course, when one of the puppet economists run into an Austrian, the results aren't pretty:

  7. nice cherry picking I could post videos of peter schiff and other austrian's guaranteeing hyperinflation and treasuries to sky rocket or the ultimate stupidity, that a country that has a country non convertible floating currency operationally ( not politically) go bankrupt. but I'm sure you would say "that's not what they meant" like every other brainwashed austrian i know. And they Oligarchs had everything to do with the austrian school
  8. Yawn. How about a third-grade grammar course before you ramble incoherently?

    The movers and shakers in the political/academic world and media have done their best to ignore the Austrians. That's not even debatable. They're a natural enemy of the ruling class' crony capitalism and lemon socialism.

    And that wasn't cherry-picking. Krugman has repeatedly refused to debate Austrians, even with a possible $100K going to charity for his efforts.

    An example of "cherry picking" is finding a quote or two from Hayek or von (yep, small "v" ) Mises while ignoring all their contributions. In the latter case, we're talking about a man who narrowly escaped the Nazis, wrote thousands of pages of books and articles without recognition or support from the sold-out academic world and correctly predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Practically no economists today had his grasp of philosophy and history. Imagine Nobel fraud/professional blogger Krugman trying to tackle Epistemological Problems of Economics[/].

    What's more, there are countless "intellectualls" who have commended Mao, a man who made Pinochet look like Mother Teresa.

  9. burn8


    Why even waste your time with this rot MK?