Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Website: www.commonsensecapitalism.com
Facebook: / 240074889678
Twitter: #!/CommonSenseCap
Music by: incompetech.com

[@hermitthefrog8951]

Summary: *The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.*

[@andreimanta3150]

I think this idiom is quite overused. And does not fit well because socialism is not hell. In Denmark a good model of socialism is applied and it works very well. Of course, one could argue that the quality of their education is also above average and this facilitates socialism.

[@thelordphenom9676]

@@andreimanta3150 The Nordic Model is not socialist. Please, stop using this lie.

[@condaquan9459]

The Mighty Cupcake imagine thinking the Nordic model is socialist, it’s not like they have the most economic freedom, Sweden has no national minimum wage, they do have large government spending yes and technically government is a public utility so there is an argument that more government spending equals more socialism but even then most who are under the Nordic model show much contempt to the overreaching government. Please do more research it’s for your own good so you don’t make a fool out of yourself.

[@andreimanta3150]

@@condaquan9459 yes, my bad. Still I guess it can be argued that the market system does not self regulate itself and needs government intervention from time to time.

[@condaquan9459]

The Mighty Cupcake so your arguing for a mixed economy ie the modern us economy?

[@GuilhermeDRMatos]

Oversimplification here: intellectuals believe that can plan and design policies better than others because studied. Desire to control, simple greed. People say that capitalism is full of greed, but there's a clear distinction between greed towards money in capitalism against greed towards power in socialism in this context. It is even possible to notice that when someone wealthy wants some power he/she will do whatever it takes to guarantee a monopoly for him/herself. You can notice that dystopian stories featuring capitalism as presented by the not-so-bright minds of Hollywood always have some kind of monopoly or oligopoly, which is basically something Hayek, Friedman were staunchly against. It is really hard to control human greed, that's why a super powerful State (or Company) is not really a good idea.

[@45Supergun]

GuilhermeDRMatos *There are three types of greed.* Simpletons (I don't mean you) passing off as intellectuals fail, perhaps on purpose--as is the instinct of "Spoiled Brats"--to understand this. *And it's SUPER easy to control greed.* The greed of one is FULLY checked by the greed of another. Greed is only dangerous when simpletons attempt to control it through artificial means (man-made morality) and trigger an imbalance or entice collusion. In an "Adult Economy" free of force, you only have two methods for acquiring something you desire: 1. Give up something in return (Greed vs. Greed). 2. Ask nicely.

[@garymorrison4139]

GuilhermeDRMatos What ideologues like Friedman and Hayek proscribed was still a program of social policy administered by government. Arguments like yours that put greed or "human nature" forward as premises of natural law are still covertly seeking to advance a public policy regime on the back side in the guise of demonizing government. Friedman was a classic example of an ideologue who worked this inversion as another anti-government crusader who was actually a long time GOP/Washington insider. What "reducing the size of government" comes down to in actual practice is, expanding the policing role of the state by re-tasking it to serve as a defender of the market while abandoning its role as a representative of the majority interest. These two aims diverge and come into direct contradiction when free-market statism acquires the mechanism of law making for its own private ends.

[@garymorrison4139]

GuilhermeDRMatos Your post reiterates an ancient western creed that has been refined as rhetoric by intellectuals over the centuries but has changed little in 2.000 years. Thru continuous legal refinement, the tradition of domination has come down to us as patrimonial capitalism. It is the myth of the self regulating free-market that now clings to the ancient formula whereby the strong by virtue of their dominance of the weak possess the natural right to back their economic and social power structure with legal force. Libertarianism represents the middle class ideological confirmation of a theory of social relations allowing private property to construcr multiple private governments or private kingdoms ruled by the most powerful property owner against all he can dominate by owning the means of employing others and by this mechanism of wages the profits of labor are extracted from by the owners who do not perform it. Under a libertarian regime this method of private exploitation is protected by the threat of force and a legal method of ensuring who keeps the profits from it wich is supplemented by contract law in addition to property law. Those who reject the exploitation of others by this ruling class of property owners refer to this system of domination, as free market feudalism.

[@garymorrison4139]

45Supergun The problems of poverty like unemployment are not moral problems but the outcome of an economic structure that depends upon desperation to keep wages at a subsistence level. Owners must depend on being able to rely on workers to returning to the job day after day with out the direct application of force, while pretending that compliance with this regime is voluntary rather than coerced by carefully structured circumstances. Businessmen insist they are the victims dictated to by the forces of nature which lie beyond human control. Greed, like sloth and drunkenness are vices, but poverty on the other hand is sustained by economic power that assumes a structure, deliberately constructed and maintained by the minority empowered by it..

[@45Supergun]

gary morrison Govt. doesn't rely on so-called "poor" (really, lazy) people for it's power? How much have "we" spent on anti-poverty programs only to realize it's gotten worse? Businessmen + their govt. cronies, is that what you meant?

[@bluewater454]

It is amazing to me that freedom has to be defended today. People would rather live under a system that controls them, takes care of them and tells them how to live their lives. Freedom requires personal responsibility. It is a scary thing when your success or failure rides on your own decisions. Maybe that is the real problem.

[@thisnamethingistirin]

Can't imagine your state of mind today.

[@bluewater454]

@@thisnamethingistirin The tyrants have revealed themselves. Covid has given ample opportunity for that.

[@patrickegan5669]

With freedom comes responsibility.

[@chokin78]

@@patrickegan5669 which is an individual matter, never social.

[@chrisgavin2794]

This is precisely the problem

[@AroundSun]

This is fantastic. This is the real deep intellectualism in economics. ="The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Short for, nobody is smart enough the run the economy.

[@tcskips]

Exactly very well put. I think I’ve reached a certain level of enlightenment as I know the almost infinite depth of my own ignorance and the impossibility of a central controller, no matter how smart and well meaning, to be able to distribute and allocate scarce resources better than the free market. Although governments are still important as they should act as a referee in the game that doesn’t have favourites and doesn’t play.

[@gaudykyle101]

Yes. Governments wield currency as weapons. Look into Bitcoin

[@Communitis]

Except that, ultimately, people are the only ones that can and _do_ run economies. Your statement is, therefore, either preposterous, or redundant, and economy as an activity is patently irrational in all cases.

[@biosavat9475]

@@tcskips Governments don't play favourites ? You sure you reached "a certain level of enlightenment"

[@biosavat9475]

@@tcskips Capitalism is not fair and it DOES LEAD TO A MONOPOLY

[@agiftedrighterdotcom]

"Ingenious without being designed"

[@ra8784]

Based

[@obezy.]

@@ra8784 wrong

[@maxwell2231]

@@obezy. bruh

[@cognitivedissidents4642]

All social engineering projects work flawlessly in the faculty lounge.

[@edwinamendelssohn5129]

Probably not even there. They steal each other's lunches

[@matthewoates4656]

@@edwinamendelssohn5129 ^^ Winnar.

[@jackieann5494]

😂😅👍

[@jessicaandtrains7768]

Which is why we live in a Capitalist Utopia today

[@Lleanlleawrg]

Absolutely. And that includes capitalism by the way. In your head I guess it's perfect, but in reality, it leads to abuses fully on par with those of Stalin.

[@cohle125]

This guy is the reason why i got into The school of Economics

[@Based_Stuhlinger]

Orange Hitler Keynes was for more influential and his theory clearly works better. Supply side economics can't work in the 21st century and only worked with Kennedy and Reagan when they lowered the tax from up to 90%.

[@tommyrosati9326]

Oscar Keynesian theory is why we have such massive government spending and deficits. In fact, Keynesian theory isn’t even followed. Anyway, Hayek didn’t advocate for supply side economics

[@austinbyrd1703]

@Karl Kowalski no it doesn't. Artificially cheap inflationary credit leads to a tug-of-war over resources with lesser demanded/undemanded projects, over consumption, overvaluations, & rampant speculation. It's drastically hurt productivity everywhere it's been tried & inevitably needs correction with a credit crunch or a currency crisis. The US has only gotten away with it for this long at the detriment of the world since we're the reserve currency. We've become a consumerist service-based economy when we're standing on a goldmine of natural resources. Name one case where keynesianism has worked. I can with the austrian school.

[@yydd4954]

@@Based_Stuhlinger demand side economics is better than supply side imo too But Keynesian economics after 1970s went to a downfall, the theory needs a lot innovations now actually Hayek was a very strong economist, shame he wasn't that famous amongst those who don't study economics. Hayek theory will never die actually. Classical economics has this quality though even though Keynesian economics makes more sense to me

[@yydd4954]

@@tommyrosati9326 if Hayek believed in demand side economics then he clearly agreed with Keynes 🤷🏻‍♂️ Hayek was a classical economist or call it bro classicaland they basically go for supply side I might be missing something here but I think Hayek was supply side economist

[@Unakanon]

Buckley should have voiced the snake in the original Jungle Book

[@christophergraves6725]

The thing is, Usonian, that Satan speaks to deceive whereas Buckley spoke the truth and confronted those in power who were acting in behalf of evil.

[@tennisiswonderful]

"...Nuuuubiiilee..."

[@dribblesg2]

In short, the only way for socialism to even approach a point at which it can work, would be in a prison where you can control all variables.

[@MrBudcole]

+Daniel Shore Yup - exactly! Socialism = force and control.

[@billyonions6024]

And even then, it would collapse.

[@makhnothecossack4948]

​@@JosephAvenettiThough what democracy is that, when some few people have gigantic purchasing power when compared to rest? If that would be a presidential election in direct elections for example, the few would be able to vote through their candidate, no matter what the many want. It isn't a democracy, it has its own term: Plutocracy, the power of money, not the power of the people (democracy).

[@snorttroll4379]

reduce the power you can buy through government and we get something good.@@makhnothecossack4948

[@anthonyesposito7]

Capitalism is totalitarianism in the workplace and supporters of it will gaslight you into thinking that because you can choose your totalitarian or become one yourself that makes Capitalism a good system. Some of us want better.

[@Gliam12345]

Without Capitalism you would't be watching this video right now. Plain and simple

[@ajuvenileimbecile9601]

+Grant Stievater plenty of socialist welfare bums are watching, I am sadly sure.

[@Gliam12345]

Thats true, but i was talking like hardware/software. Like physically watching this haha. I cant name a single tech company from any socialist European company. But I do know Dell, Apple, Alphabet, HP etc. I'm also not retarded buddy, just a deep thinker lol

[@Justin-rm6su]

+Grant Stievater Labor made the internet possible, not capitalism. Capitalism just determined that HP executives and owners get the profit while their workers are exploited through wage labor. Socialism could produce the technology necessary to watch this video too and workers would receive the full fruits of their labor while making it.

[@ajaypasricha9855]

+Grant Stievater Socialism created the internet and the computer. The economy would be nothing without a dynamic state sector. There is no dominant way to further our progress. We need a mix of both.

[@albundy7505]

+Grant Stievater KZbin is a result of capitalism

[@hughg.gaines6027]

He's talking about the rules of the game. Our social and economic systems are spontaneous orders that no single mind may comprehend well enough to design or organize. The information is simply too complex and dispersed for our finite minds to understand in a meaningful wholesome way. Intellectuals (or rather the "intelligentsia") cling to the notion that the human mind is infinite in its capacity to reorganize these spontaneous orders towards some subjective goal. This is the ultimate hubris, and their solutions are not worth even entertaining until we can agree on certain indisputable rules of the game concerning human mental capacity.

[@jacktyler7593]

+Max Black Intellectuals dont argue that the human mind is infinite. On the contrary, intellectuals acknowledge that the human mind is sculpted entirely by genetic and environmental forces. It is normal people that believe the human mind is capable of exceeding it environment. Of course this is preposterous, the human mind has no mechanism for determining what is relevant and what is less relevant, only experience can do that. Thats why you can look at human history and see all sorts of stupidity such as having thousands of people building stone pyramids for a few people to lay dead in. So while the human mind is limited due to evolution, we have been assigning more and more decision making to computers because their capacities far exceed our own. Almost all major organisations use some form of Enterprise Resource Planning system because a group of humans can not achieve the same ends. It doesnt matter what school you went to. We know that the use of money leads to inefficient use of resources as determined by environmental sustainability. We now consume at the equivalent rate of 1.6 earths per year. Society is a technical construct that requires efficient and sustainable use of resources to maintain.

[@billyonions6024]

The same could be said of war.

[@fallingtoearth810]

Honestly I would love to see nearly everything decentralized, it would solve a lot of problems. But how do you stop civilization from evolving into a corporatist dystopia? our society now is certainly turning into that.

[@acctsys]

Corporatism happens only because of government. Barriers to entry come from regulations that big corporations can skirt around but the small guy can't.

[@seanliebel6306]

@@acctsys Exactly. Henry Hazlitt states similar in Economics In One Lesson.

[@Galifamackus]

From what I’ve heard, Keynes challenged Hayek on this, since Hayek is known to not be a complete anarchocapitalist. Hayek responds on the line of government intervention in his book “The Constitution of Liberty.”

[@fallingtoearth810]

@Zoog Ancap as long as the concept of private property exists and there is a mechanism to enforce it, monopolies absolutely can and will exist. Keep in mind corporations don't just exist because of governments, they exist in spite of them too.

[@clydefrog6959]

@@fallingtoearth810 They only become monopolies after the government/bureaucrats create a ton of laws/regulation making it far more difficult/impossible for any competition to thrive.

[@SeanPannella]

Decentralization leads to more freedom. There is a sweet spot where there voluntary collaboration which results in a small amount of centralized power but ideas are still governed in a decentralized manner. Pretty much collaboration is needed for a society but the most collaboration with the least centralization of power is the optimal state for society.

[@SeanPannella]

I never stated "human nature" in fact I would argue that this is a universal for all creatures. More freedom means more choices of possible actions, which in a society where there is not a central authority but still enough resources because of some specialization there will be more freedoms than a society with a central authority. Everything in nature is entropy seeking. Beings capable of making decisions, always prefer actions which they believe will allow them to make more decisions in the future.

[@michaelfoye1135]

The essence is whether the collaboration/cooperation voluntary and therefore free, or is it mandatory and therefore a system of servitude and unfree. That is the biggest reason why the socialist(Involuntary Servitude) Left hates corporations and Capitalism(Voluntary Cooperation).

[@michaelfoye1135]

The essence is whether the collaboration/cooperation voluntary and therefore free, or is it mandatory and therefore a system of servitude and unfree. That is the biggest reason why the socialist(Involuntary Servitude) Left hates corporations and Capitalism(Voluntary Cooperation).

[@michaelfoye1135]

whendric so Money is a tool for measuring and transfering value. The alternative is a world where every transaction requires barter and it was our ancient ancestors who discovered that gold and silver coins were easier to make change with than fish, loaves of bread and sheepskins. As for money being a form of force, by the logic you used to make that assessment Air and water are also force "because if you don't have it you die."

[@michaelfoye1135]

whendric so Yes water can provide or be used as force, just as money can. Neither is however intrinsically force. That is a quality of the manner in which it is utilized. The small and primitive social systems which you refer to are not so romantic in reality and while it is possible to get along as stranded survivors on a desert island without money. It is not possible to accrue value in society absent this essential tool. Larger communities are too complex and there is too much incentive for non-productive behavior when there is no measure of value or method of barter. The type of society you speak of is a red herring. It has been done and failed thousands of times. The Pilgrims lived largely as you suggest, sharing everything within the group and it nearly caused them all too starve. Hippie communes were riddled with similar issues. It is a route to poverty and deprivation, not a rediscovery of paradise lost.

[@andrewscotteames4718]

“It assumes that all this widely dispersed information about individual wants and desires can be predicted and controlled by a central authority”

[@xokelis0015]

I've actually had a Communist argue with me in favor of Robo-Communism. That is a giant mainframe AI super computer that manages resources to predict and meet every individuals wants and desires. Apparently not realizing that such a super computer already exists - its called "the market", but that went right over his head.

[@jgmediting7770]

And that isn’t socialism. It’s just central planning. A Socialist market system works better than a capitalist market system.

[@sidewayseight8101]

have no idea what he said

[@LOLLYPOPPE]

A capitslist society doens't really reward intellectual people the way they feel entitled to be rewarded. The school system creates a lot of this entitlement, because this is where the intellectuals thrive. Therefor it makes sense for them to create a society which rewards the same values as the schools.

[@mikestoneadfjgs]

He said that the market of todays society is like a game, which has so many factors that the success of an individual is nearly unpredictable, and is therefore unfair. Intellectual people who know economics understand that the system is unfair and imagine a more fair system where wealth is distributed more effectively than it is today.

[@johnstockwellmajorsmedleyb1214]

Geronimo Cornplanter I got one, wealth has nothing to do with debt paper, cars, homes, any of that insanity, would you sell your child? Grandparent? Did you or I or any of mankind put the earth here in such a way to support priceless life? Exactly, yet one can monetize another, monetize that which they never produced. Its insane, immoral, and should have been repaired, removed, evolved sadly its the same systems for 1k years.

[@mikestoneadfjgs]

Constitutional Perfection Thank your for arguing my point. The system is unfair because it does not prioritize life, instead, it prioritizes a system that monetizes humans.

[@Wolcik3000]

one of the reasons that this brilliant man recieved the noble price is for noticing that people that doesn't understand the game, so even the slightest of economic terms and such are still thinking like economics, e.g. when someone wants to start a family that person needs to think about all the factors, as what stress or debt will have a new child or a stady relationship, what kind of living contion are required and what and how can they be achived or how the child at any point in achiving these condition will harden achiving that. Even the dumb people are inteligent, so outside of luck there is also the element of free will that someone prefers to have 10 children and live in a trailer car, rather than have none and just work to get a big house with a fence.

[@antoniorenteria2896]

doesnt matter how much you know, what matters is how much you dont know

[@JinxWilson]

Wish they put captions on this. :$

[@mustafaerdem1531]

4 years passed and no one added captions

[@WD-zk6fg]

Or turned up the volume...

[@alextrusk1713]

@@WD-zk6fg God old videos are annoying

[@tusharsingh4543]

under the market you’re free if you have money. anyone who has studied the dynamics of any market will realise it will inevitably lead to an unequal distribution of wealth that allows one class of wealthy to exploit the impoverished. Hayek is basically spouting a whole lot of nothing. the market is an abstract concept that doesn’t describe anything of what happens under monopoly capitalism today.

[@dartharpy9404]

No you need to look closer

[@jgmediting7770]

It’s isn’t markets, it’s capitalist markets. Socialist markets solve the issues.

[@danwilckens7743]

William F. Buckley: Well, Mr. Hayek, you wrote a very famous essay on the intellectuals and socialism in which you attempted, I think, quite successfully in which you tried to show why socialism is so nubile for the intellectuals. What is that thesis of yours and do you still defend it? Friedrich Hayek: You know, certainly, yes. It's very interesting story, intellectually. One of the dominant ideas, which governs thinking since the 18th century is the idea that we can make everything to our pleasure, that we can design social institutions in their working. Now, that is basically mistaken. Social institutions have never been designed and do much more than we know. They have grown up by process of selection of the successful. For some people[?] frequently no way it was successful. That applies to the market. The market is a--I was going to say most ingenious, but ingenious without having been designed--instrument which enables us to utilize knowledge which is distributed among hundreds of thousands of people. It's an adaptation to thousands of circumstances which nobody ever can know as a whole, and where the prices formed on the market tell the individual what to do and what not to do in the social interest. Now I know that in order to understand this you have to know economics. A naive person who imagines all the distribution of income is determined by somebody deliberately and actively, it seems that if this is the responsibility of a particular guy it is evidently done very unjustly. The fact is it is not being done unjustly because we achieve all that we do achieve by having come to agree to play a sort of game in which--the game of the market as I like to call it--in which because we are utilizing more information, more facts than anybody knows, the outcome for a particular individual is necessarily unpredictable. Now an outcome which is unpredictable and undesigned by anybody cannot be just, just as little as the outcome of a game of chance can be a just game. But people resent this, and the people who imagine, oh, it should be possible to design all this, to arrange this, expect the government to do this in a manner that the distribution is just. Now that is literally impossible because it would require that all this widely dispersed information about particular facts and particular circumstances and particular gifts can be used and controlled by a central authority.

[@yozonssales935]

Capitalism's free markets based on liberty are as "designed for good" as we are via natural selection in evolution. The best results are not from pre-designed ideas of a minority of "special" people at a specific period of time.

[@biosavat9475]

Appeal to nature

[@randomdudes3031]

appeal to nature

[@devanshrathore9112]

​@@biosavat9475which is valid. Nature is the ultimate teacher, not nerds writing useless papers.

[@Adamten83]

I can't even hear video, but I do know I love William Buckley and and watched his program constantly.

[@fearindrive]

does anyone have a link to this full interview?

[@mangoldm]

In short, intellectuals seek to impose justice where no injustice exists.

[@peplegal32]

Not quite what he said. It would be more like: "intellectuals seek to impose justice where no justice is possible".

[@grimsplague]

@Frederick Röders Long live the memory of Marx, may his guidance bring a fairer world.

[@edwinamendelssohn5129]

@@grimsplague His ideas have limited application.

[@jgmediting7770]

Capitalism has huge injustice ffs. And capitalism does not equal markets anymore than socialism equals central control.

[@antonioanon6672]

this needs english subtitles

[@davidnormandin5428]

"to understand this you have to know economics" 1:47 we humans play a game called the market the game is not just as any game of chance is not just

[@davidnormandin5428]

P.S. at sometime in his speaking he called everyone he knew ignorant HaHa

[@boideathmetal82]

aaah come on, he had a better accent than piketty lololol

[@bluenetmarketing]

David - Free market economics are less unjust than anything else dreamed up by the psychopaths among us, a.k.a. leftists.

[@felipeverdugo9231]

el gh

[@celestialteapot309]

l have people like this to thank for making me into Communist

[@jakw97]

Ignorance is bliss

[@celestialteapot309]

Watching friends, family, and other workers, die​ of industrial diseases was the clincher. @@jakw97

[@coolbuddydude1]

Most intellectuals need governmental funding because their studies are not very marketable. There aren't enough university professor jobs.

[@adamsmith3413]

Intellectuals believe that it’s unfair that people with less education have more wealth and prestige than they do and therefore seek to put the economy under political discipline.

[@drewgallant6279]

Hayek is seriously a bad ass.

[@odinforce2504]

How can someone call themselves an intellectual if they want to rehash a system that has failed over and over again?

[@artypyrec4186]

Democracy? Republics? Any system where you give power to the people

[@biosavat9475]

And you believe these failures were organic with no external interference ? You need to read more history my guy

[@odinforce2504]

@@biosavat9475 I said no such thing, but since you mentioned it, if a system can't flex when impacted by external factors, it's garbage and will break.

[@biosavat9475]

@@odinforce2504 please read more

[@odinforce2504]

@@biosavat9475 please say something meaningful or say nothing.

[@Caaarrl94]

socialism starts from a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority

[@owenedwards9807]

I think that is a misunderstanding. The dunning-kruger theory tells us the opposite is likely true - intellectual individuals are more likely to have a low confidence in their theory and vice-versa. The real difference is a basis in realism versus a basis in idealism I believe, this also goes a way to explain why individuals become conservative as they grow older.

[@Gamerad360]

@@owenedwards9807 There is a curve for that, which your simplistic viewpoint, doesn't illustrate. lh5.googleusercontent.com/yq-mcj1kiT3r4goUAe2tQwclcpFhjr_L5Z3z6hygGvd7AMHmOoQ9wTT16pFWFFeAnXW8DfPfj3ztty_-EBVQHuD8chfYlF1jpcqGOAT7EbY_O-D3UapcYC5Vog

[@owenedwards9807]

@@Gamerad360 Yes. That curve is called the dunning-kruger curve, which I referenced above... Are you dim? Hilarious how you call my viewpoint simplistic in contrast to the opposing comment above mine that I was trying to expand upon.

[@owenedwards9807]

Pretty sure the real curve is different anyway, negative correlation is far more apparent in the most often cited graphs.

[@Gamerad360]

@@owenedwards9807 Ad Hominem. That is the real curve, what you find is after a certain point it's positively coorilative. You just have a large spike in the beginning, once you understand basic concepts, so yes the people with high levels of fluency in a given subject have high confidence, which leads to a sense of intellectual superiority.

[@Vlavir]

The subtitles are awesome. Ok really...the subtitles are a total desaster.Btw: Did anyone else come here from "Fight of the century - Keynes vs. Hayek Rap Battle" ?

[@tomnjerry6545]

Yes, that was an epic video. I totally loved the rap

[@jujulepew]

Could you repost this with subtitles? Many thanks

[@HandSolitude]

It's because intellectuals know economics and don't fall for corporate propaganda as easily.

[@firstdog4]

intellectuals: People who never stopped and figured out whether they have been educated or brainwashed.

[@owenthomas2914]

clearly you have never been educated because this is a key part of intellectual training, intellectualism simply can not function if people do not question everything they learn in order to improve upon it.

[@isaacmccracken5870]

Interestingly, Emerson had the same criticism of the Utopians in his day. Emerson thought that any sustainable social order must emerge organically, and that society is too complex to design it by artifice. The most common fault of intelligent people is (and has always been) that we always think we are smarter than we really are.

[@hectorae86]

That is in fact also a very common thing under dumb people, i fact, all people think they are smarter than they really are, that most likely includes me.

[@canteluna]

"Emerson thought that any sustainable social order must emerge organically, and that society is too complex to design it by artifice. The most common fault of intelligent people is (and has always been) that we always think we are smarter than we really are." It is a platitude and a false dichotomy to say or imply that there is either over-kill planning or ad hoc/organic order. Did currency emerge organically? Do roads occur organically? The word "organic" should really not be used in terms of how people socialize. We don't operate at the organic level. We are not ants. We are social creatures and our social order is always negotiated in some way. The social forces at play in the negotiation is the question to ask, otherwise why not simply condone might as right? That is how many animals behave. Fortunately, social science has evolved since Emerson. The alternative to "organic" social "order" is one that is ad hoc. Have you ever been to a country where there is less planning than ours? I don't think you'd like it. You certainly wouldn't like to drive there and you'd not like the instability of the market. I wouldn't read Emerson as social scientist, there are many better and almost all contemporary because the problems we face now are not all the same problems Emerson faced. If you want to comment on social order and planning you should look into what is going on in these social sciences now.

[@futurehipay]

canteluna pretty sure money originally came to be because transporting commodities and bartering with them was not practicable, i.e. bushel of apples for 1/5 of your horse? Money has evolved intellectually, sure, but it originated naturally. Roads certainly occur organically, whatever that means. They are the shortest way from A to B given obstacles in between and are quite intuitive... Of course as we have evolved the construction is much more complex and not just a dirt path, but that isn't the point. These things came into being out of some inefficiency in a market solved intuitively.

[@canteluna]

futurehipay "pretty sure money originally came to be because transporting commodities and bartering with them was not practicable, i.e. bushel of apples for 1/5 of your horse?" Anthropologist David Graeber has evidence to the contrary. Look him up. "Money has evolved intellectually, sure, but it originated naturally." Not at all. It was a social creation to solving a problem with bartering. Again, look to David Graeber. I use him as an example because of his recent study into economic anthropology. His book The First 5000 Years of Debt is very interesting -- well corroborated, not just conjecture. "These things came into being out of some inefficiency in a market solved intuitively." This is what we've been told. Again, read Graeber for another point of view I think is more accurate.

[@futurehipay]

canteluna interesting, I am reading about him and his work. I may buy his debt the first 5000 years book (unless he has more recent or more relevant work you can suggest?). Thanks for the suggestion! socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/01/david-graeber-on-origins-of-money.html in this piece though, they at least discuss that Graeber cites examples of money occurring 'naturally' from barter systems such as salt and cocoa. Though, not so intuitively, I guess these are exceptions and not the rule. I do suppose that their existence though is sufficient enough to make your analogy moot. But your position that it is a false dichotomy still stands, as it seems money came to be both naturally and artificially, i.e. human ingenuity and planning.

[@briankaul1201]

love how he says "nubile"

[@toddmarquar]

What happens when a select few businessmen gain control of the market (which will always happen). Is that really productive for anyone?

[@adamsmith3413]

Like Steve Jobs did for Apple? Standard Oil LOWERED the price of energy needed to light and heat a home. Ford made cars more affordable for everyone and paid his Workman more than average. Rockefeller’s oil saved the whales to boot!

[@beeswillinherittheearth5084]

Bad bad things. Like buy up all the houses. Or buy all the news then demand the shops stay open in a pandemic, so they create anti maskers and basically terrify and kill other people because the free market is their Stalin.

[@beeswillinherittheearth5084]

@@adamsmith3413 you’re grotesquely oversimplifying history.

[@jgmediting7770]

This video is very disingenuous. Socialist markets fix what you say.

[@aovint63]

In one word: Ego. Intellectualism has one notable bad side effect and that's the build-up of ego. Once its passes a critical mass, the intellectual gets hungry for more power over more decisions that encompass every aspect of his country's citizens lives.

[@pirveliskola]

So, why intellectuals drift towards socialism? There is no answer to this question in this video.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Intellectuals wants a system that can control a society, capitalism, just lets the individual do things in his own interest. In this aspect, a capitalist society cannot be controlled since there are too many players following their own individual interest, it's unwieldy, volatile, yet free.

[@libertyprime9307]

+John Isaac Felipe But that doesn't explain how socialism allows people to "control" society anymore than capitalism does. There would be more factions in a socialist economy, not less. In capitalism you have a smaller number of individuals owning many, many businesses. In socialism, ownership is much more divided. There is no master to control everything, it's done via democracy.

[@MrBudcole]

+Liberty Prime What a steaming load of codswallop! Even you don't believe what you posted. "Ownership is much more divided"? Tell that to Venezuela, where they are experiencing forced blackouts and toilet paper rationing - and every media outlet reports EXACTLY what the government (not the people) put on air. Honestly, you people are either brain-damaged, or you are just lying to yourselves, with your nose in some fucking PAMPHLET that makes you believe that one day you won't have to actually DO anything. Well, that day is coming - only you'll be in a coffin... or an oven, if you get your wishes.

[@libertyprime9307]

Gmail User Nobody is talking about state socialism dumbass. Socialism is an anti-statist system. What you're talking about is pseudo-communism as has been practiced by every nation calling itself communist. Apples to oranges.

[@punkrockparents]

Socialism is anti-statist? Heehee! Pray tell, just how do you plan on stealing other people's property and forcing people to hire the less qualified without the power of the State? Yea...And "redistribution" is "justice".

[@lilianagerondelis9082]

I don't like to be controlled, I want my own life and freedom. Is that great to be able to live the way you want without fear?

[@jgmediting7770]

Then you’re anti-capitalist and a market socialist. Not that this channel will tell you that.

[@candlelight_8182]

Personally, I don't believe that there is a side that 'intellectuals/smart people' flock to. There are many ways of being smart. There are people like Ben Shapiro who advocates Capitalism and people like Albert Einstein who advocated Socialism. Both are very smart but in different ways.

[@joanneortiz3251]

You gotta love Buckley's super posh accent XD. Not to make fun of him. Greatly admire him.

[@watchful38]

It's wonderful to see and listen to Mr. Hayek --- Thanks to You Tube! From Canada.

[@christophergraves6725]

Buckley should have had Hayek on *Firing Line* earlier when he had a full hour to discuss Hayek's tremendous range of reflections that spanned economics, political science, psychology, law, and history. Hayek was one of the last intellectuals who did not specialize in some narrow arcane sub-discipline steeped in technical jargon and mathematics without knowing one iota of anything outside of their overly refined mental closet.

[@Battlecry17]

A key reason why intellectuals drift toward socialism is that they can more easily conceive of a system or society that is different from our existing system; whereas those who do not engage in much intellectual activity are usually unable to conceive of a system outside of the social prejudices in which they have been immersed in since birth. Another, more subtle point is that capitalism is biased toward extroverted personalities; intellectuals and academics tend to be much more introverted and often shun the cultural aspects of capitalist society. Hayek does make a valid point that intellectuals tend to have a positivist outlook on the world and look to innovative (or "design"-based) models of social organization. But lets not forget that Marx's conception of capitalism and socialism was organic and evolutionary in nature - socialism was not something to be designed but rather an emergent phenomenon, in classical Marxism at least.

[@SleekMinister]

To be radical means to go back to the roots, but; how far? Social war in Rome, the battle of Roman citizenship for Italians?

[@Battlecry17]

SleekMinister To go back to the roots in the context of socialism means analyzing and identifying the structural (systemic) causes of particular issues rather than criticizing values, institutions or policies (or "evil" individuals).

[@SleekMinister]

It could, but it wouldn't be a semantically correct statement - socialism isn't a synonym for causation any more than liberalism, utilitarianism, calvinism... They all make excuses for their syllogisms, so to speak, and those who "make it" in this game make quite sure that most of their central idiosyncracies are alligned and backed up with lore; but certainly, it deviates somewhat from most others in that it focuses on the main jugulars, that is true, but in no way is this ghost of an ideology more or less inclined to systemic thought than any other political trife. That's just plain silly. Capital is a word stemming from counting heads of cattle; quite systemic to our way of life, beef is. Whoever, whatever you get in the chocolate box of political life, the bottom line of the winners is "Reform to the new system", even if that is the old system with pig tails and a new blouse. Far as I'm concerned, we've never had the one or the other completely and when the end result is a slight shift in living patterns, mostly due to techonological change, I see the governors mostly as gatekeepers of the landed aristocracy and kissers of the clergical cape, and not social or capitalist first. Anyone with power can assume purest connection to the ancestors and natural law, buy off the worst trouble makers with copper pennies on the dollar and twist history from there on out so that we who come after may deem them favourable. Which is what really counts to the Count, second to keeping power. How you get there and how you stay there, is simply decided on the whims of the moment. After the fog of violence clears, you can recant (recount) your sins and make amends (mend), alternatively celebrate a triumph. Only time will tell how many believed you. Where these mini-episodes of academic quibblery bubbled into historical events, is where ideological roots find fertile ground (but we usually search the six previous generations for the catastrophe that ignited the spark). It's where to look for the archons that figure today on the bulwarks of intellectual achievement and the cross road where you lament the passing of the druids and the bards. You see, apply qui bono to some famous modern philosophers and physicists and your eyebrows soon start disappearing into what's left of the good Gods providence. Or being radical can mean looking into the swirling mists of the dawnless past, like QotSA do. It only refers to gradient, by way of Latin "radius". All roads lead to roam and most things boils down to a G-thing, in the end. Whatever else a well rested semantician could pull out, analysis without criticism is, of course, quite useless.

[@Battlecry17]

***** And putting words into other people's mouths is also retarded beyond compare. I never stated that "they are all introverted", but it is fairly common knowledge in the field of psychology that there is a positive correlation between IQ and introversion. What is iffy is the definition of "intellectual", but generally that definition includes above-average intelligence and a preference for abstract or academic pursuits.

[@Battlecry17]

***** Again, it depends on how we define "intellectual". But generally speaking, introversion is by definition a preference for the internal "world of ideas". In any case, I did not state that the majority of intellectuals are inclined to socialism, just that intellectuals can more easily grasp a concept so far removed from present day social conditions such as socialism. While there is certainly a greater number of intellectuals and academics who are socialist than those among the general population (specifically in Western countries), it is true that the majority of them are not socialist (Hayek was addressing the situation of the inter-war period, where intellectuals, engineers and scientists had a strong preference for socialism).

[@Vanguard521]

It is so wonderful that Hayek lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union. Also I believe The Road to Serfdom has even more weight being written to touch on both the National Socialist & Marxist Socialist systems.

[@razorback0z]

Road to Serfdom should be required reading to all high school students globally.

[@cuttobl4ck]

Unfortunately he could not witness the 2008 financial crisis, and the billionaire space race. I’m curious what he would have to say about capitalism in the 21st century, and where we went wrong perhaps

[@makhnothecossack4948]

​@@razorback0zFairly funny for libertarians cry about government control and them demand that everyone should by using government/central control read the book you and other libertarians find supporting their ideas.

[@J5L5M6]

game, set, and match to@@makhnothecossack4948

[@tmwcamden2751]

Hayek slouches and leans uncomfortably worse than Buckley (usually) did. But at least he was 142, Buckley in his 50s.

[@tmwcamden2751]

Aurier Buckley was drunk as fuck quite often too. Typical of '60s conservative drunks and stoned ass hippies, those two.

[@kpjlflsknflksnflknsa]

Tmw Camden They would have made good company. I would like to sit back, smoke some joints and play xbox with the both of them.

[@tmwcamden2751]

ThisnThatPackRat Hmmm...that was before Xanax too. Quaaludes?

[@kpjlflsknflksnflknsa]

Tmw Camden opium

[@tmwcamden2751]

Aurier Oh yeah, they had this processed opium , "soapium" because of its taste prevalent in the 80s. Good call.

[@eddietruly8807]

I know this is off discussion but I can't think for my life the name of the guy doing the shoe?? the hosts name please???

[@fogiejitsu4495]

William F. Buckley

[@toddmarquar]

Think for yourselves people. The idea that whats best for a corporation and whats best for the people are aligned is ridiculously absurd.

[@FergusScotchman]

My head just exploded. Amazing.

[@lollor2004]

What a 3 minute blast of information and insight. Very nice and close to Friedman in his intuition.

[@mrmtn37]

B. Meinhardt Friedman and his South American investments?

[@ddriveddrive4986]

Authority can Suck it with Authority yup

[@JaviEngineer]

Authority can Suck it with Authority , Name a South American Economy or Society as stable as Chile...

[@heinrichvonkekelnazi393]

Javier E Castillo That's probably because Chile is a Constitutionalist Republic, who's government structure is closely modeled too that of America, and they use the only economic system that's ever worked: Capitalism, where every individual has and maintains the freedom to grow beyond themselves, or be a lazy fuck and go nowhere in life -- kind of like Marx, who took repeated bank loans, never repaying them, never had a job, lived off his parents wealth, and beat his wife and children.

[@christophergraves6725]

Hayek was a lot better than Friedman. Friedman's positivism put him on the same trajectory as what Hayek is criticizing in this clip. As long as you think of people reacting as if they were mere objects in motion, as Friedman did, rather than conscious actors who are conscious agents deciding their course of action based on fragmented knowledge, then social engineering is not far behind.

[@johnn.1186]

What little I was able to digest was fascinating.

[@dr.floydmillen4736]

Hayek's influence on Margaret Thatcher was phenomenal. My book "Thatcherism Hayek & the Political Economics of the Conservative Party" looks at this

[@sentientmoreorless.9210]

Now I know where Peter Sellers got the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. Spot on.

[@tomthumb3897]

It's very hard to listen to Hayek tbh. I even read road to serfdom, but his youtube(english) videos are basically unwatchable to me.

[@kpjlflsknflksnflknsa]

I heard that he took a lot of drugs back in the day. Smack, cocaine. you name it. |Evidently, it took its toll.

[@Subjagator]

It may not have been possible years ago, it may not be possible now, but advancing technology has repeatedly shown that what was once impossible, can be made possible. Given enough computing power, and enough data, is should be possible to collect, collate and analyze all the circumstances he was referring to. Something companies are doing now with 'big data'.

[@MrBongobongbongo]

because work is hard, compromising the integrity of the people that do what they can't makes them feel like they have purpose, which they don't.

[@TPQ1980]

The biggest problem for intellectuals in general is that they operate almost entirely in a world of ideas. The rest of us operate in the world of reality. The intellectuals see theories and statistics and models, whilst the rest of us experience the real impact of those theories, statistics and models. The intellectuals inhabit a world which is ostensibly isolated from the impact of the ideas they espouse. They see a model is wrong, or the statistics misinterpreted, or the theory flawed and the implementation of all this does not harm them. We get to experience the real world impact of their flawed thinking through the policies their thinking informs, whilst they sit back, cushioned from any fallout their mistakes might produce. Intellectuals guide policy, but are rarely the beneficiaries or victims of it. They give impetus to the cause, but are rarely impacted by the effect of that cause. This is why they can be free to espouse all kinds of ideas that run counter to common sense and established norms.

[@c.alejo8846]

besides, they operate often in a world of very wrong ideas.

[@tzvibendaniel2045]

Imagine having the arrogance of believing that you can lead a whole nation according to what you think is best

[@abhijitbaner]

the rooting is based on a sense of justice; if we believe in a society of just outcomes (as most of us do) - this can only be achieved if there is enough controls in place that can create just that.

[@tzvibendaniel2045]

@@abhijitbaner what is just?

[@chokin78]

@@abhijitbaner Hitler and Stalin approve this message...

[@abhijitbaner]

@@chokin78 never heard Hitler or Stalin say that, but these were words expressed by someone called Frederich Von Hayek

[@abhijitbaner]

@@tzvibendaniel2045 I am not as articulate, but I can give you a simple example. We always ask our kids to study for exams. A just expectation is the results will be better if they study more. Think of this in a broader more sociological context & you get the jist.

[@uptoapoint7157]

it is an interesting update that Bitcoin is the monetary alternative that has evolved as a distributed accounting system beyond the reach of government Austrian economists have understood the danger of fiat currencies since the hyperinflation of the 1920's.

[@tomkat69pc]

He's the Dr. Christian Szell of economics asking "is it safe?" Economy theory for the rich .. .

[@danielclee1]

You never move with perfect knowledge, and this applies to intellectuals as much as to the rest of us.

[@elbedregal]

Absolute Genius!!!

[@sandorfintor]

This is purely mind-opening!!!

[@nickjames7914]

Social institutions are absolutely designed.

[@Kaddywompous]

nubiiiile

[@Paul-A01]

Socialism is the economic equivalent of creationism

[@imaginativelads]

Not exactly, some socialism was even acknowledged by Margaret Thatcher, a convert to Hayecks theories. She was right and further more, modern civilization is impossible without its influences. No political or economic philosophy has sustained itself without modification and hybridization. The extremes are combined to keep civilization going long enough for the next generation to acquire wealth without the threat of having their heads cut off or the starving masses from raping them and torching their houses. These are compromises we accept because the alternative is barbarism. Conservative ideology is useful because it serves a a model for the negative results of staying the course in the face of growing inequality, it is, classic coke, a failed product.

[@Paul-A01]

***** I take it you mean "New Coke". The liberal position is to charge headlong in the other direction. You want to tackle the causes of wealth inequality? Focus on government bailout and subsidies of corporations. The kensyian system that brings forth the "Too big to fail" mentality. Focus on government controls that make income mobility harder, and make it harder to start new jobs. You say we need some hybrid. How much of our economy should be slurped up by the government? Because it's growing every single day. Imagine devoting a chunk of our economy to an industry that produces nothing but laws that make it harder for the rest to do anything. I say it's creationism, because like creationists, they can't imagine how little changes from individuals can produce well designed results. It's the appeal to a central authority to explain things.

[@imaginativelads]

All political systems are make believe, so your analogy of socialism being the equivalent of creationism is lacking. Socialism is the alternative to trusting a free market that has gained no more credibility than any other man made institution. The public and private sector are both made up of imperfect people and there are far more examples of systemic corruption and incompetence from the latter as opposed to government. Socialism unchecked is as bad a capitalism without restraints and the free market can be equally destructive without any of socialisms good intentions. If you're looking to defend a kind of Ayn Rand free market approach I have only this argument to offer which is a light saber of reason to her simpleton philosophy. Rand believed self interest is important above all things, to which I agree, in part, however what she failed to define is the difference between a mutually beneficial and constructive long term "self interest" and it's more destructive counterpart short term "self interest" this failure is no small defeat for objectivism, but rather the equivalent of hydrogen bomb dropped on her philosophy thus discrediting it forever.

[@zigzaggyp746]

+imaginativelads Socialism is the equivalence of Creationism(Christian pov), if you believe that fallible man can duplicate what a supposed infallible Creator does, or should at the very least try. The central planning of Socialism is akin to Creationism with a mitigation of the benefits and consequences of free will. The presumption of coercion through force is justified through a collectivist greater good mentality to combat what is seen as a slanderous tone against Socialism. However, it is but the simple truth. Socialism justifies coercive aggression through a government power structure under the guise of benevolence, at the expense of individual liberty.

[@imaginativelads]

I simply disagree with Ayn Rands half assed definition of "self interest" because she doesn't bother to define the difference between a destructive long term self interest or its more constructive counterpart short term self interest. In the 1920's Henry Ford gave the best example of long term self interest that benefitted everyone including himself by raising minimum wages from $2.50 a day to $5.00. This was unheard of for that time period and with that decision he was able to retain employees that would otherwise have quit and saved money by not having to pay the costs of training new ones. Unfortunately even today this is a rare event and most employers will opt for the short term profits even though the facts suggest they could save millions by simply raising wages they refuse to do the rational thing that would benefit both the company, the stock holders and the employees at the same time. Do you have any objections to defining for Ayn Rand those differences as they do make a difference rationally?

[@cPalleon]

Does anyone know the name of the essay he was talking about here?

[@TheDigitalAgeSage]

Its called socialist intellectual explaining why he's a socialist intellectual

[@ryanbannerman2830]

Brazil reference was nice information retrieval will see you soon Mr Buttel

[@wanfu5634]

A lot of intellectuals love feeling relevant while simultaneously never having to pay the consequences of being wrong.

[@markhills9864]

and this guys one of them you mean?

[@lewislyles2342]

You are not wrong

[@AndrewLaReal]

That may be true for state socialism but what about libertarian socialism ?

[@jgmediting7770]

Sshhh. That’s not allowed to be talked about. Socialism = state control, capitalism = markets. That’s the propaganda the capitalist elite want ordinary people to be conditioned by.

[@stubkar]

Capitalists have all the good music.

[@bigernie8543]

Back when people were capable of thought and speech. I miss those days.

[@philosophyman]

Lets see how the markets handle AI

[@jgmediting7770]

A Capitalist market system will use AI to control the masses and concentrate wealth and power even more. A Socialist markets system would use it to improve working people’s lives. This video is very disingenuous. This video about central planning v markets, not socialism v capitalism. Ironically, hayek’s ideas would be more successfully served by a form of socialism rather than any form of capitalism.

[@anonymouse740]

Hyek reminds me of Peter Sellers' character, Dr Strangelove. Well except for the crazy outbursts of course :)

[@ScottGray1632]

+Anonymouse The Sellers character was based on another Austro-Hungarian genius, John von Neumann. Though Hayek was born in Vienna and was ethnically/linguistically Austrian, while von Neumann was born in Budapest and was ethnically/linguistically Hungarian. www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/196994/John_Von_Neumann_Documentary/

[@anonymouse740]

Scott Gray Ah okay, well I was kind of right in spotting the similarity. I loved that film BTW.

[@robertoarosio5495]

Could anyone summarize what Hayek says here?! I cannnot understand. Thanks in advance

[@dartharpy9404]

Wow great question. I'm not an expert but will give it a go. Don't crucify me. Distributive intelligence of the millions of people looking after there own interest in the market tends to work well. In opposition the intellectual narcissist says I'm smart and says I know better than the broad body of people who reveal their preferences by their purchasing decisions. Which is more likely to result in a good outcome.?

[@meredith5879]

This is not an argument against socialism per se, just one against centrally controlled markets. A lot of damage is done by equating socialism with stalinism and similar undemocratic movements.

[@C_R_O_M________]

As a psychologist who have studied the brain quite extensively I'd say that intellectuals are usually left-brained individuals. The left brain is prone to assuming control over its external conditions by trying to make predictions (usually by using known patterns and templates that are somewhat known to produce the desirable result in similar situations). Unfortunately, these predictions are of little or no use at all in highly dynamic and chaotic environments (an economy is certainly such a domain). To cope with that, the left brain creates a set of arbitrary assumptions. It's main concern is to establish dominance over the right (silent) hemisphere no matter the cost. Socialism is the system that allows this left-brained tendency to materialise. It is the ultimate labyrinth for creating appropriate excuses for intervention. It matters not if all policies fail. A new excuse is up and ready to serve the cause. After all, what intellectuals really like is to think (sometimes to a degree that it becomes an addiction). P.S. there is great evidence of hemispheric lateralization of function in humans. It is shown in the studies of Roger Sperry (Nobel prize) of split-brain patients and his associate Michael Gazzaniga. Another great source is the book of psychiatrist Iain Mcgilchrist titled : "The master and his emissary". In it he explains how the left brain evolved from a mere problem solving tool to an oppressive intellectual entity (my term).

[@belthoff444]

+C_R_O_M__________ As a person who loves both economics and psychologist (and just wants to learn more about each topic) this is great

[@C_R_O_M________]

+belthoff444 you might find interesting a clip here on KZbin of a speech from a Harvard based scientist named Jill Bolte Taylor. She suffered a stroke that incapacitated her left hemisphere. The title I think is "my stroke of insight". It's very relevant to the above and worth seeing.

[@titolovely8237]

capitalists embrace state intervention as well. that's hardly the separating point between the two systems. seems like you're defining socialism as wanting the state to intervene in the economy, which is universal to all systems, dating all the way back to tribal humans. your definition needs refinement.

[@belthoff444]

Bernise Anders Not all capitalists like state intervention, some want very minimal intervention, while others don't want any

[@titolovely8237]

belthoff444 of course they do. it's highly irrational to not want the state to protect business.

[@surearrow]

>>---------------------------------> Brilliant man!

[@MrOperettalover]

Far from brilliant enough. He amoungst many other right wing economists are responsible for keeping socialism alive by accepting utilitarism as a subject of discussion. Socialism can't be refuted by econonic arguments. Legalized coersion and theft isn't a bad model for society because it doesn't produce enough wealth, but because coercion against honest man is not a sustainable standard. In this sense Hayek was a "good" socialist better than any other. What Hayek should have done, only if he was intelligent enough, to point out that we can not have owenership over ground without this ground to be kept under up-bringing. What he failed to do is to focus on what the so called right wing did wrong so that poor people had no other escape route other than hoping for a saviour, which became their god, The Socialist State. It is because it was allowed to call ground one's own without using it for anything the poor man was unable to be self-sustained. Without the means even to grow food, he had no other alternative than hoping for a savior and it came by build one error upon another. That's when the state become a legalized mafia with one goal: to steal exactly so much, not more, so that the society didn't answer with weapons by the masses. The American state steals by coercion, force whatever you want to call it, more than half of the inhabitant's buying power. It is so sad that economists in general is so stupid they don't understand they have no say in a philosophic discussion about whether or not we should rest our society on theft or not. What gives the most wealth is totally irrelevant in such a discussion and economists fail to stay away from utilitarism which would support even nazism if it produced wealth enough. It is only sad that Hayek didn't uderstand that one should never allow a discussion about the general standard concerning economy before a general standard against coercion was first established. Funny enough, then we won't need any discussion about general standard of economy. When it is established that not even The State is allowed to steal, everything worth a standard is a given.

[@ivandafoe5451]

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ismyo͞oˌtiləˈterēəˌnizəm/nounnoun: utilitarianismthe doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

[@ContraMondial]

They are attracted because they love power and control.

[@rogeralsop3479]

This is hard work but essential.

[@joelhc9703]

That's an amazing way to think about it: candidness, naiveness and immaturity. These people function primarily by the defect (emotion) not by what's achieved (knowledge).

[@kippgoeden]

Most of you u have never read socialist literature and it shows greatly. Your lack of understanding about the topic, and lack of INTEREST in understanding the topic, means that you should have no say in the topic. If you can take the time out of your life to criticize a socioeconomic system that has been discussed by some of the most brilliant minds the world has had in the last 150 years, and narrow it down to “communism bad bc Uncle Sam said so”, then you can take the time out of your day to read and try to understand what it is that socialists want. We don’t want free things. We want individuals to stop owning the means of production. The capitalist class is a leach upon society, and it will suck humanity dry so long as we allow it to. The USSR didn’t fall apart, it was destroyed by the West. Don’t believe the propaganda designed to make you hate socialists, for we are the ones fighting for true democracy, not this bourgeois scam.

[@joaomouro342]

"discussed by the most brilliant minds in the last 150 years" friend of course demanded this discussion but guess who has the material advantage "USSR destroyed by the West" hahaha friend stop that it's just humiliating the USSR didn't fall because of the West but because of its unsustainable system Just as it is and was with all of Eastern Europe, the masses ended socialism, not the minorities If you want to blindly defend socialism using a scarecrow like the "American embargo" to justify the economic failure of a country, you are being ignorant. But do what you want after the fall of the wall your fight was already over

[@joaomouro342]

It was the accumulation of capital and capitalism that formed the standard of living that most people have. It was the accumulation of capital that had the ability to transform excess into a bigger problem than precariousness.You are talking to someone random across the ocean as if it were something normal thanks to oppressive exploitative capitalism

[@lookonthebrightsideoflife5200]

Because in theory, you can never be wrong. In your own little world, your electric train set is perfect and anyone who tells you it isn't realistic is simply wrong.

[@burkean]

Once you get past the accent, there is so much brilliance in one comment, He makes it look easy. "[to make a just distribution is impossible] because it would require that all this widely dispersed information bout particular facts, particular circumstances and particular gifts can be used and controlled by a central authority."

[@hermitthefrog8951]

Very prescient... this is why big tech is collecting every possible bit of data from everyone they can and applying AI to flatten society through technocratic tyranny.

[@luvbotany]

funny how Hayek lived off the teat of socialism in action of the real world; academia, worked for governments, Nobel money from socialism, never created a real job in his life... yet he never saw the irony? lolz

[@ddriveddrive4986]

luvbotany he was an observer and his ideas inspired many entrepreneurs and economists alike - your comment failed hard lulz

[@heineyo]

Rofl, wouldn't inspiring a whole bunch of countries' economic policy, most especially social democracies, constitute at least helping to create some millions of jobs? You don't need to reply, because the answer is a resounding "yeah, no shit".

[@luvbotany]

heineyo and david, so you both agree that a social democratic system works well, whereas the government taxes to develops the infrastructure and regulations so the for profit sector can flourish. Your taxes go to the university so that professors can create new ideas for the good of the people. Great, we all agree that laissez-faire-economics is a joke and Hayek and the Austrian school are fools.

[@voltaire5427]

What difference does it make if Hayek was funded by a socialist government? It doesn't make his work any less valid. That's like attributing DaVinci's talent to his mediocre 15th century education.

[@luvbotany]

Stephen Stinson, are you insinuating that davinci wasn't influenced by his place, times and teachers? We all stand on the shoulders of giants, just as he did, just as Hayek did, just as all societies do. My point is that while individual freedoms and efforts are important to the advancements in any society, so is the common knowledge and public works. Democratic socialism has proven an excellent way to allow for individual freedoms while also allowing for the society to advance on social justice and educational fronts. The Austrians are wrong to insinuate the opposite.

[@Issafreecrunch]

The beauty of Hayek and what’s missing today is the respect and acknowledgment of why liberals feel the way they do about government spending

[@daboxer181]

Great articulation!

[@curtissnow9546]

Thank the lord for great thinkers like Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. So much of the 20th century was filled with ignorance, delusion, arrogance, and greed. Without their contributions, the torch of liberty would have gone dark in the night

[@warriorprince4890]

Socialism = Profit through force via the state under the pretence of caring for people.

[@danielkruyt8192]

Socialism != state socialism.

[@reachforacreech]

thats state socialism,not to be confused with fascism.there are more than one type.the core of socialism is workers collective ownership which could not involve the state.

[@warriorprince4890]

reachforacreech Any none state ownership is a free market enterprise.

[@danielkruyt8192]

Warrior Prince Not necessarily, especially since businesses are usually privately owned.

[@warriorprince4890]

Daniel Kruyt I appreciate you agreeing with me.

[@batguerra]

Because it promises two things that appeal to human passion: Equality and social justice. And as it appeals to passion, only idiots buy that bullcrap.

[@libertyprime9307]

+Bruno Pacheco (Batguerra) Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with equality or social justice. It has everything to do with the ownership of the means of production. Seriously just google it, it's not hard dude.

[@batguerra]

Liberty Prime I know. I was just pointing what they (socialists) propagand in order to gather followers. That was no economic description :)

[@punkrockparents]

I do not know how the social/communists co-opted the concept of "justice"...There is no justice in their system.

[@batguerra]

+Crass Frazier ikr

[@MrCountrycuz]

Correct. No two people are born equal in any form unless they are both born dead. Even then, one might make a better looking dead baby than the other.

[@simoncase]

Most intellectuals spend their lives critiquing things; arguments, positions, systems of thought. That doesn't equate to socialism, but they are often sympathetic to the anti-establishment positions. I think most intellectuals recognise that, historically, socialist systems have simply become new centres of establishment, but that does not necessarily discredit the principles and arguments themselves from an academic standpoint. My point is that it is usually the career requirements of academics is that they question and critique the world, and that's sort of the point of academic articles and monographs.

[@garymorrison4139]

Intellectuals as a group, (which includes the contemptuous Dr Hayek himself, by the way), drift toward capitalist utopianism just as often without any particular encouragement. Although Hayek was in favor of debate and and gave lip service to the idea of an open society, he was never in favor of anyone, particularly voters rejecting his dream of an ideal society. Hayek could never bring himself to accept the fact that the majority in a democracy would choose to exercise their freedom by rejecting Libertarianism. Libertarianism is rejected by many because reasonable limits and the obligations of social responsibility are only a burden for those who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

[@garymorrison4139]

***** If you understand that thru the science of economics, the everlasting Truth is revealed, then you need not be troubled. To avoid inner conflict that can lead to uncertainty, it is helpful to maintain a regime of strict mental hygiene and continuously censor doubt before it can threaten your grip on reality. You already know the unchanging Truth of self-ownership above all So still the mind with this simple mantra when your thoughts begin to wander,by repeating the first axiom of economic freedom, as follows; I, Me Mine all else is illusion. (repeat) I, Me, Mine, all else is illusion....

[@latinxl416]

+Matt Bozek He's basically saying, or alluding to that the majority of people in a democracy are just stupid who don't understand basic economics and so will sacrifice their individual freedom for the collective good. What people don't see is that socialism requires coercion, especially on behalf of the wallet when if people really cared about one another like Gary above says then they would not need coercion to help their fellow neighbours. This is why charities exist and in theory, lesser taxation for the people would enable those very same people to help other people out of their own volition. If what Gary is asserting is true, that only those who argue in favour of capitalism are completely self-centred then he should answer the question on why advocates of socialism demand the government intervene on their behalf for the supposed help of others. The basic argument of capitalism and libertarianism is that individual freedom maintains that one should never be forced to do anything, but allow that individual to make choices which fall within their legal limits.

[@psychoboy303]

+gary morrison >capitalism >utopianism Pick one.

[@garymorrison4139]

I appreciate your need to tell the rest of us what thoughts are permissible and which are not. I am already familiar with libertarian authoritarianismI and the idea of thought crimes and political thought reform thank you very much. Capitalist Utopianism is passing into history as have Fascism and Communism as failed ideologies do. When economic theory attempts to cloak itself in the trappings of science or to impose itself as a political regime, blood flows. The end of Hayek's dream of forced social transformation and its political doctrine are simply failed experiments that do not presage the end of the world. I find his sense of moral panic stilted and contrived. The Road to Serfdom is. in my opinion, a mediocre book written by a demagogue.

[@rekabneb]

+gary morrison you enjoy this free market of communication of ideas yet voluntary trade has completely failed and will never work?

[@Rohme.33]

Guy 1- Hey. You heard about the farmer who became an economist? Guy 2- Yeah. The only thing he could grow was a deficit.

[@Desertduleler_88]

Nationalism is true socialism.....

[@Anon54387]

+MrStoneycool69 No, it isn't.

[@Desertduleler_88]

***** It is, not Communist Socialism btw.

[@spartan2600]

Markets require rules and instruction too. The enforcement of property rights are the biggest regulation/rule of all, and besides, is a very recent invention in view of the history of our species.

[@Deelystaniel]

The man devastates socialism. I love it.

[@FordyHunt]

I wonder what Hayek would make of global warmists.

[@mr__daly]

He thinks they are hot......

[@MUFASAxSHAKA]

Wtf, he was an economist...that's like asking the Pope for his views on fantasy football. You're connecting two different discussions just because they share a political correlation. Irrational.

[@FordyHunt]

MUFASAxSHAKA He was a lot more than an economist. This is a discourse on Socialism, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is a political movement, just like Warmism.

[@MUFASAxSHAKA]

KingOfHammer I agree with everything you've just said, but none of it has anything to do with "global warming". Correlation does not equal causation and Socialism does not inherently have anything to do with global warming. Global warming is a discussion that he would likely not have even addressed due to lack of expertise in the field (whereas he devoted his entire life to understanding and theorizing Capitalism and Socialism).

[@FordyHunt]

There is no expertise required. Warmism is a politically generated non-science based on computer modelling, which is not, and never will be, part of the scientific method. I didn;t say Socialism is the cause of global warming. I'm saying Warmism IS the New Socialism.

[@rsquarcini]

fantástico!

[@adrianaspbury2970]

Anybody else think that was junior Soprano from the caption of the video

[@PillCozbee]

Can't understand him.