Give Google, Facebook, RUclips etc... A chance to get the algorithm right, and this radical hate speech will be taken down! Such intolerance to collectivist servitude is unacceptable!
"Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow men. But the conception of a social justice; to expect from an impersonal process - which nobody can control - to bring about a just result is not only a meaningless conception, it's completely impossible." Great man
+DjimonMoz Buckley was no slouch and off-the-cuff stated the same thing in 1968 about riotous, covetous hedonistic utilitarian theft of property which is one definition of justice - editorialization ( ) and any miscasting of his words are my fault: "There is a metaphysical distinction (between law and justice and law and order) which I’m sure has not been observed by (the Democracts) implementing policy. A state as defined in the (classical) liberal idea is not a state which accepts (social) justice as its primary goal for the reason that elementary distinctions were made millennia ago between the city of God and the city of man. Now I grant it, the rhetoric of the Democratic party sometimes seems to give us the impression that it is ushering in the city of God except God is unconstitutional… the Republican emphasis on law and order is, in my judgment, perhaps for accidental reasons, in closer congruity to the limited aspirations of a constitution of a free republic."
Thomas Sowell put it nicely when he said that the pursuit of social justice is really the pursuit of a sort of vague sense of "cosmic justice." There is something "unfair" in a sense, about great disparities of circumstance and fortune, and we all feel that; but it's not something that's unfair in a way that treating people unjustly could solve. The most you can say is that this kind of feeling can motivate charitable action. The "cosmic injustice" can't be resolved because there's nobody to blame, but the effects of it can certainly be ameliorated.
I'm reading "The Road to Serfdom" right now; I can't put it down. I have a hard time conceiving that anyone could read that book and think any form of Socialism, or social justice, is a good idea. Incredible work from a great mind.
You might think social justice is not a good ideia but the way you think will depend on your social economic backround and personality. Hayek argues that social justice is injust because is forced upon you. If yout take a closer look to societies (not just human societies even in monkeys) you can see what happens when social justice "doesn´t matter". Not everybody can be on top (rich or whatever) some of us are more than others and the ones in the bottom which usually are in bigger numbers will get resentful. You will have social unrest and instability and that usually degenerates in violence. I have read the book is a really good book makes you think. But I still think Hayek didn´t fully grasp the meaning of liberty when you leave in society ( and this is just my opinion of course) to have liberty you need peace and to have peace you need "somekind" of social justice. We can not all be on top so on my view it is on the interest of the ones on top as well to keep social justice or take a risk of seing their peace being taken away.
@@anafps23 someone is born rich and someone is born But both have one similarity Responsibility! One has to preserve his wealth, he has to be responsible of a large capital, he needs to make the capital bigger. Other person responsibility is to become economically stable. Both cando their thing. That's when they have liberty. Liberty to do whatever they want to. And u can't restore equality, when u do that then u intervene in economy. Also u put force of ur power to make it happen. But if a person is given freedom no matter rich or poor he can do something in life and best part is he will do by working for it! If government starts helping one then other will expect it to happen too and it goes on.
The best anti SJW argument I have ever heard !! 12:59 Hayek: People are diffrent, in order for the state to make all people equal the state must treat all people unequal.... Hear this SJW !!
We're living in a world that rest upon legalized coercion, here under theft, and its only justification is the end of a gun barrel. Thus, the only way to get rid of our psychopath inspired system is by barrel of guns. Preferably with plenty of bestialic torture against as many as possible of all who support The State, including public employees. We need to stop the money flow to The State and we need to exterminate they who give rise to what is consider to be a legitimate theft. A State can not live without legalized theft, and when we stop their money flow, the beast will go away by itself. There is not only the left who are guilty of our present crooked system, but also the so called right. They're theft is if possible even worse and consist of property. They allow themselves to control ground, but without having it under up-bringing, thus take away the possibility for common man to be self-sufficient. This is why it is correct to say that the so called right wing is they who gave rise to socialism, legalized coercion and theft. Then the second mistake was built upon the first one.
MrOperettalover Nice point you brought here. Have you read Rothbard ? I personaly hope that we never reach a state when such violence will be necesary to stop the expansion of the state.... I would argue that many public employees actualy have good intentions, they view their job and function as something good for all. And I am not saying that they do not see the coruption or the evil, but they belive that the state can be reformned. The founding fathers belived that the state can be contained at a minimal level at wich it will be usefull and not do harm. People grow acustomed to the state, there will be ones who will advocate the reformation of the state, but I also belive that in the long run the state is un-reformable.
mariusstana Sure I've read Rothbard. His the father of the gold standard and one of those morons who have function as a usefull idiot for the left crackpots by a belief system where he thinks we can get rid of legalized theft (most of it) by economic arguments. Economic argument sort into a larger class called utilitarism, an evil thought system willing to justify any action as long as it produce better life for most people, and with no ethics in its roots. Economy can never construct a valid argument to support anything. Legalized theft is not evil only when it doesn't lead to a better life for most people. Legalized theft is always evil.
MrOperettalover Well you are a little harsh on Rothbard here...but I don't mind that. He did not invent the gold standard, he advocated for it. Actualy he is against utilitarianism as far as I get it, so am I. He clarly states his rejection of utilitarianism in the libertarian manifesto. I agree with you, theft is theft no matter how the states legalizez it !! I agree that economic theory alone can not build or reform society, and this is true of political ideologies. I agree on the need on a strong and firm moral code.
"Classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can't deduce from this, that because people are unequal, you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that's what social justice amounts to..." Great quote to end on.
Greetings from Austria! Hayek 's one of the greatest sons of or country. Definetly one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Disprooved the effectiveness (and evil) of those socialist politics which are today imposed on Europe....half a century ago! Cool tie by the way ;-) wanna' get such one too!
5:08 “*There are no possible rules of a just distribution in a system where the distribution is not deliberately the result of people bringing it about.* Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice to expect form an impersonal process, which nobody can control, to bring about a just result is not only a meaningless conception, it’s completely impossible.”
@@cosmodradek you can't "change the system" because the system isnt the result of someone's conscious plan, but the aggregate of individuals' decisions and actions.
@@ivantolkachev4808 Sorry, it is not an "I" who will change it, but a "we". Hayek's statement that a single mind is unnable to plan a whole society is obvious and actually irrelevant, since "changing the system" has to do with collective action and planning, not with some single omniscient mind that knows everything and will plan every single action on a given society. This whole "single mind" thing is a strawman.
@@cosmodradek Who's "we"? We are currently in the process of "changing the system" but if you're talking about coercive power than that can clearly only ever be governed by the plan of some specific mind.
@@ivantolkachev4808 We are already governed, and coercion is all around us (Hayek called it "rules of conduct", every order has these). Your fear from communism is fear from our "Great Society", here and now. For Hayek, we are selfish animals, ignorants about our own human community (and wishing to know it is certainly a bad move; knowledge is dangerous! he keeps remembering us), animals compelled by unknowable, invisible, unpredictable forces, living in isolation, fighting with each other and hoping that somehow, in the whole, all this conflict, uncertainty, isolation and selfishness will be somehow converted into a beneficial order for the most of us. It hasn't been working until now. How do you know if something is beneficial or not? Knowing it. Isnt it obvious? So, if Hayek truly means that we can't know our social order, he is also unnable to demonstrate why should we bother about a thing we cant even properly know, or recognize themselves in it. It might be very well dragging us all into the abyss (some say we have already plenty of evidence of this), who knows? Not a single mind. Include Hayeks.
A lot of people are skipping over what George said in the middle there and missing an absolute gold nugget about the whole situation. We all know that justice and injustice are claims of right/wrong ie Morality. Now as Hayek points out we can be just or injust towards other people, our actions and interactions are what hold the moral content. What Roche says is very profound, that Social justice types try to quantify injustice as if the assigning of numbers can tell us about morality but it can't. If all the interactions that lead to an outcome are voluntary and mutually agreed upon then the outcome itself cannot be unjust simply because the numbers look a certain way. This is why the system is a-moral because its our actions that determine right/wrong. For example if you look at the gender pay gap SJWs parade, if the outcomes are largely due to womens choices then it can't be said to be unjust simply because the numbers differ, but if women were coerced into lower outcomes then that's something we can look at. A single variable analysis tells us nothing about what is just/injust we have to dig deeper into peoples actual actions.
Currently reading The Road to Serfdom”. I’m a moron, so it’s taking me a while, but it’s brilliant. A real dismantling of the collectivist ideology. Would recommend!
+David Murphy I like the way he sometimes starts to smirk and lean way over to one side like he's melting horizontally- or maybe has been caught by a fish hook in his mouth. He didn't do it in this one though.
Social justice may only be present if one is free to live ones life as one wishes in a way that doesn't harm anybody else. It's dependant upon freedoms and liberties such as freedom of speech, private property rights, the ability to be free from abuse or otherwise interference from the state, etc. It's about social mobility where one may work as hard as one wishes and achieve success in ones chosen field without artificial barriers placed by the state.
Why is it only artificial barriers place by the state? Private business/corporations can place artificial barriers to social mobility as do relationships between different sections of society. My god, even private schools can place artificial barriers to social mobility. I am not saying that these things INSTEAD of the State do this but it is worth bearing in mind.
@@nathand520 using the same logic, you should provide extra basketball classes and training to the shorter/weaker players instead of the taller/more qualified ones, maybe even quotas in the NBA. This was btw, merely an example for Me to show the huge holes this "positive discrimination" mentality of yours has.
I think he’s aware Hayek is a Libertarian. Buckley even stated at the beginning of the video However, the ideals - especially monetary and individualism over the collectivism Are more consistent with the populist and conservative movements/ideals of today in reaction to the extreme authoritarianism of the left. I would say that even though conservatives might have more traditional values and perhaps religious undertones and not as open social ideals than moderates, independence, and libertarians of today, I think in reaction to a lot of woke culture and push for central authoritarianism by The left, these classically liberal individuals have kind of become a shared resource for everyone now who is lumped into “the right “even though that represents a lot of diversity of thought. AKA everyone to the right of AOC or Hillary Clinton is now referred to as “the right” by the MSM even though few of us are perhaps traditionally right, Republicans, or conservatives. By virtue of the left’s craziness, they have now created a coalition of people that have little or various elements in common, but we can all agree that the authoritarianism has gone too far and must be stopped.
@@warholcow Sure but the only way to do that is to push back whenever people talk stupid shit like calling our current situation today, a result of "neo liberalism" and lumping Hayek in with this term...a term that is completely fabricated and should be resisted (Neo Liberalism that is). If any of this is to mean anything then there has to be more serious replies about what it means to distinguish between "Individualism" and "Collectivism" - and today what we have is an ever increasing form of Collectivism, which is Opposite of anything Hayek is teaching and arguing. Don't let people get away with blaming today on anything to do with Hayek or liberty, its ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
I recommend reading Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” because it is the greatest of all his books. Truly one of the greatest political thinkers of the 20th century.
When most people say “social justice” they usually mean “distributive justice”, assuming all the money in the world always belonged to everyone and needs to return to everyone equally. The problem is the rich didn’t get rich off the the backs of the poor, but off the back of the capitalist system. In contrast in a capitalist system, the poor are usually poor because of their values or lack of attention to finances. To immigrate from poverty, the best place to start is by changing your values: Finish high school, work full time, don’t marry outta wedlock, and you’re 98% guarenteed not to be poor. Then, save, budget, and invest. Watch how you spend your money. I took one economics class in high school yet the Internet seemed to fill in the rest of the gaps just fine. A financial literacy course will also help a lot. That is all.
I don't understand; he is perfectly eloquent in this, though he is not a native English speaker and is trying to talk around ill fitting dentures.... If you wrote down his statements verbatim and handed it to someone who had never heard him speak, they could only conclude that he spoke English better than 90% of native speakers.
So, if I understand Hayek's last statement... in order to have people treated "equally" social justice must violate that principle and treat people unequally.
He's comment about China proves he was wrong. But I guess didn't realize the end of capitalism will result in the greatest atrocities humanity has ever seen.
Can we just stop for a second and admire the older media? Today I am lucky if I get some real insight into a subject or information. It’s not about left or right, it’s about being informed. Today it’s all about pwning the left or pwning the right. We learn nothing unless by accident, and most people I try and talk to or debate with regurgitate the stupid talking points from their side. Fuck I hate modern America I want real insight, real debate, and the educated experts to talk to me. Not some dumbass politician or talking head. I hunger for knowledge and am fed shit
"That desperate egh" lol I was playing with you. "Pinochet was setting the foundations of liberty" Well there are no Marxists in government now, the economy was reformed & Pinochet stepped down in favor of a democratic & constitutional government so I guess Hayek was right.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it." Or in Buckley's case, doing his job to present something for his guest to refute.
This is amazing. I dont know the guests' faith or values. But the Christian belief on social justice is parallel to these good men. I just finished listening to John MacArthur's Social Justice and the Gospel video. MacArthur is the pastor of a protestant church. It was grately satisfying to hear faith and common sense intersecting (as they usually do in christianity. Because christianity is a reasoning faith. But it is great to at least have an example.)
No one has accepted any of your statements because you are so deeply confusedabout Hayek, I mean any person who knows anything about Hayek knows that he places the preservation of individual liberty above any other aspect of society.
It is worth observing that William F. Buckley at various times described himself as embracing the system of political economy developed by Henry George. He was introduced to Henry George's ideas by Frank Chodorov, a close friend of the Buckley family. For those not familiar with Henry George's writings, the best way to describe him is as an anti-monopolist free trader. He recognized that the greatest monopoly was the private appropriation of the rent of land, which he argued was societal wealth and must be publicly collected to pay for democratically-agreed upon public goods and services. All other sources of pubic revenue were an unjust confiscation of private wealth.
***** Not necessarily, if all landowners decided to use their monopoly power over the use of said land against non-land owners, there is little to stop them, least of all a servile population of serfs (this is what states do, and that is why Hayek called it The Road to Serfdom). This is the case in feudal and manorial times, where the right to own property is in the hands of a small and select elite. This, I believe, formed the basis of Ricardo's analysis on rents, and subsequent conversations about "rent-seekers" being merely appropriators of the productivity that land holdings reap, without contributing to said land's actual production.
xxcrysad3000xx Both Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith expressed a better understanding of the distinction between capitalist and landowner. Owning land is passive. Nothing is produced by the mere ownership of land. And, the rental value of land arises because of locational advantages, either because of fertility differences, abundance of timber or subsurface minerals, or nearness to the commercial and financial districts of cities. Individuals do not produce locational advantages. They come from nature or from the aggregate public and private investment in infrastructure and societal amenities. Or, in cases such as that of Las Vegas, because a legal privilege for gambling was created. Some owners of land exert labor to produce wealth, which is rightfully their property, the taxation of which is really unjust confiscation. So long as individuals compensate the entire community for the privilege they enjoy (as reflected in locational advantages), that should be the end of the financial obligation to society. A few Austrians (e.g., Fred Foldvary) have embraced this perspective, but they remain in the minority.
Edward Dodson I enjoyed reading your words. I never heard of the names Henry George, Richard Cantillon, and Fred Foldvary before but I will look them up. I'm not sure if I understood the idea completely. Did Henry George propose of socialization of land property as a substitute for taxation of labor?
The rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor. Lord Acton quoted by - A. L. Goodhart, English Law and Moral Law (London, 1953), p. 95
9:39 -- ["...which raises the question: What is a society ?"] Definition (Wiki) A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labor, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming as an agricultural practice, and expansionism.[2][3][5][7][8] ------------------------ If neoclassical economics is well known to exude symptoms of autism, economic libertarianism is probably the most acute full blown form it...
"we have got to accept Big Government for the duration-for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged...except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." ~William F Buckley
There rise of commercial society is another kind of spontaneous process to ordinary markets. Cultural group selection. Also on the 'natural' thing Hayek described spontaneous order as "nether natural nor artificial" See The epilogue of Law Legislation and Liberty vol. 3 for info on both.
Social and economic justice cannot come from the free market (a random and impersonal process), it can only come from humans and human made institutions who are trying to balance ever contrasting social developments. For example the goal of progressive taxation as implemented by the IRS is to remedy income inequality and to provide funds for social services, public infrastructure, and education. Earned income credit, affordable housing, and need-based federal financial aid for college students are other examples of economic justice institutions.
no he was making a point that the other side would make, that is the job of a good host, to cover angles other than those natural to your perspective. Buckley is just a quit wit that is why you mistook his assertion with a firmly held belief.
If you read Hayek you would know that he believed that fascism was a form of socialism. They were two systems that comprised individualism and since you're so educated you must know that Hayek was the most dedicated advocate of individual responsibility with limited affirmitive action.
On a scale of 1-10 how much of an honor would it have been if you were asked to sit on a panel with Hayek and answer these questions like George Roche was?
I cannot believe the pathetic comments on here. All of these arguments of why we should tax rents and intervene have been refuted time and time again Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Its intellectually pathetic that you are not up to date on things that were settled decades ago.
It's funny how you state that such notions have been refuted, and only mentioning people who argued against them. I can do the same thing. In fact when capitalism was forming in England, John Locke was arguing to remove rents. He despised them. He viewed them as resources that had to be taken from industrious men to be given to people, who do nothing.
The questions I'd ask Hayek: (1) Is government the creation of the market? Where government has prohibitions and regulations, standards of behavior, standards of contracts, the authorized limited use of force, standards and principles to adjudicate disputes and dispense justice, all with the goal to protect property, individual rights, and the general welfare of the group. It's common in families, tribes, villages, and larger geographic and social groups. its common because nature and experience have shown its more efficient and effective for the individuals and the group, than say, eating your young, living on an island by oneself without the social benefit of division of labor, or without an agreed upon framework for social interactions. (2) How does regulation of the commons fit within his framework, if at all? This includes open source software, data, scientific research, open source curriculum, and fishing , grazing, and water use limits. Is he saying these acts are immoral because these things are given away freely or that they shouldn't have compromised their short term fishing, grazing, or water use, for long term gain of a regulated commons? It looks like he takes the short term, limited view of ethical and economic decisions rather the longer and wider view.
Fascism isn't limited to antisemitism.I've read Hayek and what he's written has supported "emergency powers" to ensure capitalism isn't ended via revolution. He simply extended this with his support of Pinochet, the fascist, in order to protect capitalism in places where the left was strong. Hayek supported fascism. There's no explaining your/his way out of it. And you haven't read Perelman or you'd understand why early classical liberals had to abandon their free market ideology.
Social justice is a broad topic and as it is used by American Marxist's never covers all of the ground that it ought to? One of the blatantly left out features of the cry for social justice is the rights of employers? And if so what are they? The social justice preachers never approach or address this element? It is not in their interests to do so? It goes against the grain of their real goal and ambition? Or is it social justice to have someone decide to waste their life away on drugs and promiscuity and then after the consequences of such a licentious life style take effect demand that society carry the burden of medical care and other forms of welfare? Or again when the OWS mob came to town and turned coffee shop bathrooms into sewers leaving the poor fast food worker to clean their disgusting mess? Of course you can see the social justice there? We can multiply examples of those glaring omissions of whats become the farce of social justice and its Marxist underpinnings in this age. But when you have a view of life that begins and ends with materialism and the value placed upon it then you are left, no pun intended, to think in such brute terms. Man soars with such high and glorious ideals only to wind up in the gutter of an existential futility. Not that all liberal thinking is wrong or bad but so much of it is misguided and does not flourish on the timeless virtue of character, integrity and good morals.
What Hayek ignores (at least in this exchange) is the impact of entrenched privilege under law. In particular is the existence of landed privilege that enables the landed to claim an increasing share of what producers produce without offering anything in exchange except access to nature that under law they control. As John Locke observed (and Adam Smith confirmed) the private appropriation of the rent of land is a redistribution of wealth, again, from producers to non-producers. To solve this problem, Smith urged societies to look to the rent of land as THE source of societal revenue.
Edward Dodson, no Hayek understands your privilege comment... overwhelming evidence if you look through U.S. history how many people came from dirt poor backgrounds and became the richest in the country... Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, James J. Hill, and on and on. Most generations lose the wealth by spending and not having the drive of the original person. Also if you look at how immigrants and first generation Americans do against people who have inherited wealth you will see that there is no entrenched privilege to uphold the nonsense of "social justice"
Dividendstock fish I can only refer you to Adam Smith's presentation of how rent arises in societies as population increases the competition for land that offers the highest level of natural advantage (or, in cities, is located centrally in the financial districts). When such sites are fully claimed and only land of less potential productivity is available, the best land yields rent a an unearned claim on what is produced. When an individual or entity gains control of enough such sites, they are able to collect rents to meet their consumption needs without having to produce anything in return. If society was to collect this rent to pay for public goods and services, there would be no justification for taxing earned income flows and material goods produced. Moreover, land prices would be quite low because there is no imputed rental income stream to be capitalized by market forces. Again, I direct you to Adam Smith. Or, for a modern analysis I recommend economist Mason Gaffney.
Self Stirring Pot Giving land to the people, as a program of land redistribution, never achieves the desired result. Not everyone is able to put land to its highest, best use. The far better approach is to fully collect the potential annual rental value of land (and land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum and take-off and landing slots at airports, and taxi medallions). From this societal fund, there is likely to be sufficient funds to provide a citizens dividend to everyone. Some economists estimate that rent comprises one-third of GDP.
No I havent read it but I have read "The invention of capitalism" by Michael Perelman which explains why early classical liberals had no choice but to go against their "free market" ideals in order to facilitate actual capitalism. Give it a read. It's free online. It also gives insight into why Hayek supported fascism.
gov run school is rich people lowering the bar on everyone that cant afford to get in to private school, gov run school is a conflict to liberty in the republic of the usa, without government in the way the technology of the best private schools would be emulated by the others vary fast in the modern world.
+Andre Barros Not a lot of presidential candidates speak out about The Fed, political correctness, and social justice like he does though. The fact he got elected actually makes it understandable that Alex is excited about Donald.
People nowadays are so brainwashed they cannot listen to Hayek. I would even be happy if they knew that Friedrich von Hayek lived and his ideas lived on.
Isn't justice decided upon by its own merits? Hence why there is a judge or magistrates present (in the English common law as it has evolved at least) to thrash out the particular specificities and circumstances of each case; this indicates the unique nature of injustices doesn't it, otherwise judicial punishment would be meted out without arbitration?
Of course, being born in an English speaking country helps when communicating in English, and English wasn't really as big in Europe when Hayek grew up, as it is today.
very successful people who become multimillionaires eventually get to a point where money doesn't add material happiness anymore. they then are naturally inclined to do charity, give money to medical research, provide shelter for homeless people, or others. that is just how it goes. we want to become rich, and when we do, we want other people to become rich too. if the government makes higher taxes for the rich, less people will be helped, companies won't get the incentives to grow and provide extra jobs, and charities will be meager. taking money from rich people makes more harm than good. rich people can give a hand for the needy for self develpment much more than the government can. voluntary relations are, at the end, more efficient than central social justice.
It was for the cold war. He actually believed that the economic basket case called the Soviet Union was a threat. he favored "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy," "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington - even with Truman at the reins of it all."
So, justice is an attribute of an individual action, we can agree on that. So, when a business owner takes an unjustly enormous cut out of the profit made by work his employee does, he is being unjust to that employee. So, he is acting unjustly towards all his employees individually - that is social injustice. Also, one of the arguments here is that the richest shouldn't be taxed because taking away someones income with not stimulate them to be productive...yet the reason those people are the richest is because they take away the biggest part of other people's income. So, it's important to insentivize the owners, but it is irrelevant to insentivize the workers, who bring the actual skills and knowledge necessary for work? It's like bending over backwards to provide an intellectual-sounding excuse why the rich should just take everything we have and we shouldn't complain about it - we may even want to give up our entire wages so they can be further stimulated to be "productive".
Also - you cannot decide for anyone else, like China cannot decide to take money from the US to help their problems...yet, this same principle doesn't apply to, surprise surprise, the rich business owners, since they can decide for each of their employees how much money they are allowed to have. Funny how no principle can be applied on every level.
What's "unjust" is your own subjective opinion. You would not be able to give a quantitative precise number as to what would be a "just" compensation. You would produce any random number, none better than another one produced by someone else that's more greedy.
@@Stonecoldfrank So, me robbing an old couple of their life savings would not be unjust, for example? It would be totally arbitrary to label that as unjust or put any kind of quantifier as to how unjust it is?
@@vebdaklu And by the way, that's what the Government does when it prints (counterfeit) money and devalues the currency, it reduces the value of whatever savings you have. That's a power that's way beyond the purview of any private institution. But the Government does so anyway because that's the manner by which it can redistribute wealth around without having to directly tax people.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that we have footage of this man speaking is amazing.
Imagine we had footage of people like Bastiat and Adam Smtih speaking.
Give Google, Facebook, RUclips etc... A chance to get the algorithm right, and this radical hate speech will be taken down!
Such intolerance to collectivist servitude is unacceptable!
Shared this 3x today!! Thank you for posting!!
Quite interesting life of Hayek from world war one to economic adviser of nations
Not really. He died in 1992 - not that long ago - , so it's not surprising that we would have footage of him speaking.
In my adolescence I have read Chomsky and Che, I just wish that I would have read Hayek and Friedman at the same time.
Nat Brown Balance of different ideas and viewpoints lead to actual critical thinking. anything but is brainwashing
Nat Brown never its too late to read Hayek and other great classical liberals such as Mises, Adam Smith and Bastiat
Its not a coincidence that as young people we're made aware of Chomsky & Che but not Friedman & Hayek
Jesus, this fucking trash heap is dead and praise fucking gritty.
All of the above are slightly whacky eccentrics, and in some cases, extremists. You would have been better off reading someone like R.H. Tawney
"Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow men. But the conception of a social justice; to expect from an impersonal process - which nobody can control - to bring about a just result is not only a meaningless conception, it's completely impossible."
Great man
+DjimonMoz Buckley was no slouch and off-the-cuff stated the same thing in 1968 about riotous, covetous hedonistic utilitarian theft of property which is one definition of justice - editorialization ( ) and any miscasting of his words are my fault: "There is a metaphysical distinction (between law and justice and law and order) which I’m sure has not been observed by (the Democracts) implementing policy. A state as defined in the (classical) liberal idea is not a state which accepts (social) justice as its primary goal for the reason that elementary distinctions were made millennia ago between the city of God and the city of man. Now I grant it, the rhetoric of the Democratic party sometimes seems to give us the impression that it is ushering in the city of God except God is unconstitutional… the Republican emphasis on law and order is, in my judgment, perhaps for accidental reasons, in closer congruity to the limited aspirations of a constitution of a free republic."
Thomas Sowell put it nicely when he said that the pursuit of social justice is really the pursuit of a sort of vague sense of "cosmic justice." There is something "unfair" in a sense, about great disparities of circumstance and fortune, and we all feel that; but it's not something that's unfair in a way that treating people unjustly could solve. The most you can say is that this kind of feeling can motivate charitable action. The "cosmic injustice" can't be resolved because there's nobody to blame, but the effects of it can certainly be ameliorated.
It doesn't matter how many people die in the process, the adherents of social justice will never stop.
I'm reading "The Road to Serfdom" right now; I can't put it down. I have a hard time conceiving that anyone could read that book and think any form of Socialism, or social justice, is a good idea. Incredible work from a great mind.
Yes, really can cure the socialist disease. Unfortunately, this is far from mainstream now.
Amen to that.
Excellent read! Loved it!
You might think social justice is not a good ideia but the way you think will depend on your social economic backround and personality. Hayek argues that social justice is injust because is forced upon you. If yout take a closer look to societies (not just human societies even in monkeys) you can see what happens when social justice "doesn´t matter". Not everybody can be on top (rich or whatever) some of us are more than others and the ones in the bottom which usually are in bigger numbers will get resentful. You will have social unrest and instability and that usually degenerates in violence. I have read the book is a really good book makes you think. But I still think Hayek didn´t fully grasp the meaning of liberty when you leave in society ( and this is just my opinion of course) to have liberty you need peace and to have peace you need "somekind" of social justice. We can not all be on top so on my view it is on the interest of the ones on top as well to keep social justice or take a risk of seing their peace being taken away.
@@anafps23 someone is born rich and someone is born
But both have one similarity
Responsibility!
One has to preserve his wealth, he has to be responsible of a large capital, he needs to make the capital bigger.
Other person responsibility is to become economically stable.
Both cando their thing. That's when they have liberty. Liberty to do whatever they want to.
And u can't restore equality, when u do that then u intervene in economy. Also u put force of ur power to make it happen. But if a person is given freedom no matter rich or poor he can do something in life and best part is he will do by working for it!
If government starts helping one then other will expect it to happen too and it goes on.
Hayek we will miss you. Thank you for everything you have done. I shall honor you legacy.
The best anti SJW argument I have ever heard !! 12:59
Hayek: People are diffrent, in order for the state to make all people equal the state must treat all people unequal....
Hear this SJW !!
+mariusstana I noticed the point and was trying to come up with a witty post, instead I'll just agree with yours'.
We're living in a world that rest upon legalized coercion, here under theft, and its only justification is the end of a gun barrel. Thus, the only way to get rid of our psychopath inspired system is by barrel of guns. Preferably with plenty of bestialic torture against as many as possible of all who support The State, including public employees. We need to stop the money flow to The State and we need to exterminate they who give rise to what is consider to be a legitimate theft. A State can not live without legalized theft, and when we stop their money flow, the beast will go away by itself.
There is not only the left who are guilty of our present crooked system, but also the so called right. They're theft is if possible even worse and consist of property. They allow themselves to control ground, but without having it under up-bringing, thus take away the possibility for common man to be self-sufficient. This is why it is correct to say that the so called right wing is they who gave rise to socialism, legalized coercion and theft. Then the second mistake was built upon the first one.
MrOperettalover
Nice point you brought here.
Have you read Rothbard ?
I personaly hope that we never reach a state when such violence will be necesary to stop the expansion of the state....
I would argue that many public employees actualy have good intentions, they view their job and function as something good for all.
And I am not saying that they do not see the coruption or the evil, but they belive that the state can be reformned.
The founding fathers belived that the state can be contained at a minimal level at wich it will be usefull and not do harm.
People grow acustomed to the state, there will be ones who will advocate the reformation of the state, but I also belive that in the long run the state is un-reformable.
mariusstana Sure I've read Rothbard. His the father of the gold standard and one of those morons who have function as a usefull idiot for the left crackpots by a belief system where he thinks we can get rid of legalized theft (most of it) by economic arguments. Economic argument sort into a larger class called utilitarism, an evil thought system willing to justify any action as long as it produce better life for most people, and with no ethics in its roots. Economy can never construct a valid argument to support anything. Legalized theft is not evil only when it doesn't lead to a better life for most people. Legalized theft is always evil.
MrOperettalover
Well you are a little harsh on Rothbard here...but I don't mind that.
He did not invent the gold standard, he advocated for it.
Actualy he is against utilitarianism as far as I get it, so am I. He clarly states his rejection of utilitarianism in the libertarian manifesto.
I agree with you, theft is theft no matter how the states legalizez it !!
I agree that economic theory alone can not build or reform society, and this is true of political ideologies.
I agree on the need on a strong and firm moral code.
"Classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can't deduce from this, that because people are unequal, you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that's what social justice amounts to..." Great quote to end on.
Hayek's intellect and wisdom is awe-inspiring, eye watering.
Greetings from Austria! Hayek 's one of the greatest sons of or country.
Definetly one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Disprooved the effectiveness (and evil) of those socialist politics which are today imposed on Europe....half a century ago!
Cool tie by the way ;-) wanna' get such one too!
It's 2020 and this took place 43 years ago, yet it is more relevant than ever in the age of social justice.
Tell me about. Here in 2021 it only gets *worse*
Because Gramscian socialism has lingered throughout all that time and prevails today.
2022 and it's more and more relevant. Im sure it will remain that way as time goes on
5:08 “*There are no possible rules of a just distribution in a system where the distribution is not deliberately the result of people bringing it about.* Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice to expect form an impersonal process, which nobody can control, to bring about a just result is not only a meaningless conception, it’s completely impossible.”
change the system then, easy-peasy
@@cosmodradek you can't "change the system" because the system isnt the result of someone's conscious plan, but the aggregate of individuals' decisions and actions.
@@ivantolkachev4808 Sorry, it is not an "I" who will change it, but a "we". Hayek's statement that a single mind is unnable to plan a whole society is obvious and actually irrelevant, since "changing the system" has to do with collective action and planning, not with some single omniscient mind that knows everything and will plan every single action on a given society. This whole "single mind" thing is a strawman.
@@cosmodradek Who's "we"? We are currently in the process of "changing the system" but if you're talking about coercive power than that can clearly only ever be governed by the plan of some specific mind.
@@ivantolkachev4808 We are already governed, and coercion is all around us (Hayek called it "rules of conduct", every order has these). Your fear from communism is fear from our "Great Society", here and now.
For Hayek, we are selfish animals, ignorants about our own human community (and wishing to know it is certainly a bad move; knowledge is dangerous! he keeps remembering us), animals compelled by unknowable, invisible, unpredictable forces, living in isolation, fighting with each other and hoping that somehow, in the whole, all this conflict, uncertainty, isolation and selfishness will be somehow converted into a beneficial order for the most of us. It hasn't been working until now.
How do you know if something is beneficial or not? Knowing it. Isnt it obvious? So, if Hayek truly means that we can't know our social order, he is also unnable to demonstrate why should we bother about a thing we cant even properly know, or recognize themselves in it. It might be very well dragging us all into the abyss (some say we have already plenty of evidence of this), who knows? Not a single mind. Include Hayeks.
How we need this level of genius, comprehension and ability of articulation right now.
That's a lot of gray suits and some amazing insights. Both Mr. Buckley and Mr. Hayek were completely unflappable. Nothing could shake them up.
A lot of people are skipping over what George said in the middle there and missing an absolute gold nugget about the whole situation.
We all know that justice and injustice are claims of right/wrong ie Morality. Now as Hayek points out we can be just or injust towards other people, our actions and interactions are what hold the moral content.
What Roche says is very profound, that Social justice types try to quantify injustice as if the assigning of numbers can tell us about morality but it can't. If all the interactions that lead to an outcome are voluntary and mutually agreed upon then the outcome itself cannot be unjust simply because the numbers look a certain way.
This is why the system is a-moral because its our actions that determine right/wrong. For example if you look at the gender pay gap SJWs parade, if the outcomes are largely due to womens choices then it can't be said to be unjust simply because the numbers differ, but if women were coerced into lower outcomes then that's something we can look at. A single variable analysis tells us nothing about what is just/injust we have to dig deeper into peoples actual actions.
This man and his articulation of libertarian ideas are an international treasure. Much love from Pakistan.
The end does not justify the means. Treating people unequally in the name of equality is unjust.
Currently reading The Road to Serfdom”. I’m a moron, so it’s taking me a while, but it’s brilliant. A real dismantling of the collectivist ideology. Would recommend!
hahaha i love Buckley's use of the term nubile
+David Murphy I like the way he sometimes starts to smirk and lean way over to one side like he's melting horizontally- or maybe has been caught by a fish hook in his mouth.
He didn't do it in this one though.
I couldn't imagine such an intelligent/civil/open ended interview being aired on TV 2020. What happened?
People realise that there is such thing as a society.
Social justice may only be present if one is free to live ones life as one wishes in a way that doesn't harm anybody else. It's dependant upon freedoms and liberties such as freedom of speech, private property rights, the ability to be free from abuse or otherwise interference from the state, etc. It's about social mobility where one may work as hard as one wishes and achieve success in ones chosen field without artificial barriers placed by the state.
***** Your purely emotional statement has nothing to do with what I said or objective reality.
***** Ah, you're a lefty SJW type. That explains your apparent lack of logical reasoning skills.
Why is it only artificial barriers place by the state? Private business/corporations can place artificial barriers to social mobility as do relationships between different sections of society. My god, even private schools can place artificial barriers to social mobility. I am not saying that these things INSTEAD of the State do this but it is worth bearing in mind.
Adrian Fisher I agree with your comment. But What do you mean by "artificial barriers"?
That last minute of this video is so brilliant!
Agreed.
Hayek is as great as ever. The host clearly agrees with Hayek, but it's his job to ask the questions for his viewers.
Genius is a word which insult him but I don't know any better one.
"The goal of government to make people equal would demand that the government treat people unequally." This is the Fatal Conceit.
There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals. If i am accurate i believe this quote was attributed to Thomas Jefferson
@@nathand520 using the same logic, you should provide extra basketball classes and training to the shorter/weaker players instead of the taller/more qualified ones, maybe even quotas in the NBA.
This was btw, merely an example for Me to show the huge holes this "positive discrimination" mentality of yours has.
FA Hayek is one of the most important people to ever live
I like the calm tone throughout the interview.
William F Buckley interviewing F.A. Hayek, this is PURE CONSERVATIVE GOLD!!!
Hayek was not a conservative
Hayek was not a conservative - he wrote a paper on the matter
I think he’s aware Hayek is a Libertarian. Buckley even stated at the beginning of the video However, the ideals - especially monetary and individualism over the collectivism Are more consistent with the populist and conservative movements/ideals of today in reaction to the extreme authoritarianism of the left. I would say that even though conservatives might have more traditional values and perhaps religious undertones and not as open social ideals than moderates, independence, and libertarians of today, I think in reaction to a lot of woke culture and push for central authoritarianism by The left, these classically liberal individuals have kind of become a shared resource for everyone now who is lumped into “the right “even though that represents a lot of diversity of thought. AKA everyone to the right of AOC or Hillary Clinton is now referred to as “the right” by the MSM even though few of us are perhaps traditionally right, Republicans, or conservatives. By virtue of the left’s craziness, they have now created a coalition of people that have little or various elements in common, but we can all agree that the authoritarianism has gone too far and must be stopped.
@@warholcow Sure but the only way to do that is to push back whenever people talk stupid shit like calling our current situation today, a result of "neo liberalism" and lumping Hayek in with this term...a term that is completely fabricated and should be resisted (Neo Liberalism that is). If any of this is to mean anything then there has to be more serious replies about what it means to distinguish between "Individualism" and "Collectivism" - and today what we have is an ever increasing form of Collectivism, which is Opposite of anything Hayek is teaching and arguing.
Don't let people get away with blaming today on anything to do with Hayek or liberty, its ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
2:55 The Game of the market
4:20 No incentive if you know it will be taken. Less incentive, less motivation, less production
Amazing this was discussed in the 70s or 60s in this venue. Step by step, inch by inch, we have TODAY. We let today seep in through the holes.
Social Justice is anything but justice
I recommend reading Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” because it is the greatest of all his books. Truly one of the greatest political thinkers of the 20th century.
I wish I could speak that eloquently!
US Catholic bishops please watch this video! Excellent.
I am taking a curse on theories of justice and i hate every second of it, this is one assignment where I finally had fun watching.
When most people say “social justice” they usually mean “distributive justice”, assuming all the money in the world always belonged to everyone and needs to return to everyone equally. The problem is the rich didn’t get rich off the the backs of the poor, but off the back of the capitalist system. In contrast in a capitalist system, the poor are usually poor because of their values or lack of attention to finances. To immigrate from poverty, the best place to start is by changing your values: Finish high school, work full time, don’t marry outta wedlock, and you’re 98% guarenteed not to be poor. Then, save, budget, and invest. Watch how you spend your money. I took one economics class in high school yet the Internet seemed to fill in the rest of the gaps just fine. A financial literacy course will also help a lot. That is all.
Also, asking for help from the community is not bad, it just needs to be coupled with working hard. The government cannot solve everything.
I don't understand; he is perfectly eloquent in this, though he is not a native English speaker and is trying to talk around ill fitting dentures.... If you wrote down his statements verbatim and handed it to someone who had never heard him speak, they could only conclude that he spoke English better than 90% of native speakers.
So, if I understand Hayek's last statement... in order to have people treated "equally" social justice must violate that principle and treat people unequally.
How else can you equalize the results of unequal people ? You cut the legs of the tall person and put heals on the short.
He's comment about China proves he was wrong. But I guess didn't realize the end of capitalism will result in the greatest atrocities humanity has ever seen.
Capitalism modernized the world, only for us to think of better ways to destroy it. Midnight's coming
No
Wrong
One of the best economists and fathers of capitalism
@9:20: "Well no, at that point I become the sucker."
LOL. Nice one.
Can we just stop for a second and admire the older media? Today I am lucky if I get some real insight into a subject or information. It’s not about left or right, it’s about being informed.
Today it’s all about pwning the left or pwning the right.
We learn nothing unless by accident, and most people I try and talk to or debate with regurgitate the stupid talking points from their side.
Fuck I hate modern America
I want real insight, real debate, and the educated experts to talk to me. Not some dumbass politician or talking head. I hunger for knowledge and am fed shit
Wow.. profound... why is this not taught at all in school. More importantly why are these ideas not widespread.
"That desperate egh" lol I was playing with you. "Pinochet was setting the foundations of liberty" Well there are no Marxists in government now, the economy was reformed & Pinochet stepped down in favor of a democratic & constitutional government so I guess Hayek was right.
Pinochet was always right, while Allende was alone as a drunk man
"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without accepting it." Or in Buckley's case, doing his job to present something for his guest to refute.
This is amazing. I dont know the guests' faith or values. But the Christian belief on social justice is parallel to these good men. I just finished listening to John MacArthur's Social Justice and the Gospel video. MacArthur is the pastor of a protestant church.
It was grately satisfying to hear faith and common sense intersecting (as they usually do in christianity. Because christianity is a reasoning faith. But it is great to at least have an example.)
Wonderful explanation by Hayek about treating unequal people unequally to make them equals. Very simple but so correct.
Great idea. Similar to what Lenin wrote about in chapter 5 in state and revolution i think. Lenin was ahead of his time huh?
No one has accepted any of your statements because you are so deeply confusedabout Hayek, I mean any person who knows anything about Hayek knows that he places the preservation of individual liberty above any other aspect of society.
Holy shit that host's voice is amazing! 🤣🤣🤣
Excellent video and teachings.
When did this conversation take place?
I like those ties! Does anyone know what that particular design is called?
wisdom is timeless
It is worth observing that William F. Buckley at various times described himself as embracing the system of political economy developed by Henry George. He was introduced to Henry George's ideas by Frank Chodorov, a close friend of the Buckley family. For those not familiar with Henry George's writings, the best way to describe him is as an anti-monopolist free trader. He recognized that the greatest monopoly was the private appropriation of the rent of land, which he argued was societal wealth and must be publicly collected to pay for democratically-agreed upon public goods and services. All other sources of pubic revenue were an unjust confiscation of private wealth.
***** Not necessarily, if all landowners decided to use their monopoly power over the use of said land against non-land owners, there is little to stop them, least of all a servile population of serfs (this is what states do, and that is why Hayek called it The Road to Serfdom). This is the case in feudal and manorial times, where the right to own property is in the hands of a small and select elite. This, I believe, formed the basis of Ricardo's analysis on rents, and subsequent conversations about "rent-seekers" being merely appropriators of the productivity that land holdings reap, without contributing to said land's actual production.
xxcrysad3000xx Both Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith expressed a better understanding of the distinction between capitalist and landowner. Owning land is passive. Nothing is produced by the mere ownership of land. And, the rental value of land arises because of locational advantages, either because of fertility differences, abundance of timber or subsurface minerals, or nearness to the commercial and financial districts of cities. Individuals do not produce locational advantages. They come from nature or from the aggregate public and private investment in infrastructure and societal amenities. Or, in cases such as that of Las Vegas, because a legal privilege for gambling was created. Some owners of land exert labor to produce wealth, which is rightfully their property, the taxation of which is really unjust confiscation. So long as individuals compensate the entire community for the privilege they enjoy (as reflected in locational advantages), that should be the end of the financial obligation to society.
A few Austrians (e.g., Fred Foldvary) have embraced this perspective, but they remain in the minority.
Edward Dodson
I enjoyed reading your words.
I never heard of the names Henry George, Richard Cantillon, and Fred Foldvary before but I will look them up.
I'm not sure if I understood the idea completely. Did Henry George propose of socialization of land property as a substitute for taxation of labor?
William F Buckley Jr is a top interviewer
antipodes......I always learn a new work from Bill Buckley!
I admire him so much
Cuando van a subir el video subtitulado al español ?
many examples of new citizens who serve their ruler of the country as well as this guy.
You can be moral by giving up your personal money not someone elses
Ro500501502 you haven’t factored in what earning and ownership of $ really means
It also says "Thou shalt not steal" somewhere in there
The rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor.
Lord Acton quoted by - A. L. Goodhart, English Law and Moral Law (London, 1953), p. 95
justice should not be in the same sentence as taxation
What year was this interview?
Hayek is completely correct.
I ask if you want equality how about equal productivity? Of manual and administrative tasks for everyone?
9:39 -- ["...which raises the question: What is a society ?"]
Definition (Wiki)
A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labor, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming as an agricultural practice, and expansionism.[2][3][5][7][8]
------------------------
If neoclassical economics is well known to exude symptoms of autism, economic libertarianism is probably the most acute full blown form it...
William F Buckley forms a question...
Others: *heavy breathing intensifies*
"we have got to accept Big Government for the duration-for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged...except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." ~William F Buckley
There rise of commercial society is another kind of spontaneous process to ordinary markets. Cultural group selection. Also on the 'natural' thing Hayek described spontaneous order as "nether natural nor artificial" See The epilogue of Law Legislation and Liberty vol. 3 for info on both.
F. A. Hayek lived for another 15 years or so after this interview; I think he was in his late 70's in this presentation.
"It seems you have not even read Mises". Yes I have. I'm attacking the theory that capitalism can exist without state intervention.
Note the term "co-educational". Many universities had been all-male until then, and a number were still all-female.
Hayek is awesome! Social justice is brainwashing.
He actually said earlier that social justice cannot be defined, let alone be executed.
Social and economic justice cannot come from the free market (a random and impersonal process), it can only come from humans and human made institutions who are trying to balance ever contrasting social developments. For example the goal of progressive taxation as implemented by the IRS is to remedy income inequality and to provide funds for social services, public infrastructure, and education. Earned income credit, affordable housing, and need-based federal financial aid for college students are other examples of economic justice institutions.
no he was making a point that the other side would make, that is the job of a good host, to cover angles other than those natural to your perspective. Buckley is just a quit wit that is why you mistook his assertion with a firmly held belief.
If you read Hayek you would know that he believed that fascism was a form of socialism. They were two systems that comprised individualism and since you're so educated you must know that Hayek was the most dedicated advocate of individual responsibility with limited affirmitive action.
On a scale of 1-10 how much of an honor would it have been if you were asked to sit on a panel with Hayek and answer these questions like George Roche was?
10. It would be an awsome experience to watch such a georgous brain work. RIP Hayek.
I cannot believe the pathetic comments on here. All of these arguments of why we should tax rents and intervene have been refuted time and time again Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. Its intellectually pathetic that you are not up to date on things that were settled decades ago.
It's funny how you state that such notions have been refuted, and only mentioning people who argued against them. I can do the same thing. In fact when capitalism was forming in England, John Locke was arguing to remove rents. He despised them. He viewed them as resources that had to be taken from industrious men to be given to people, who do nothing.
The questions I'd ask Hayek:
(1) Is government the creation of the market?
Where government has prohibitions and regulations, standards of behavior, standards of contracts, the authorized limited use of force, standards and principles to adjudicate disputes and dispense justice, all with the goal to protect property, individual rights, and the general welfare of the group. It's common in families, tribes, villages, and larger geographic and social groups. its common because nature and experience have shown its more efficient and effective for the individuals and the group, than say, eating your young, living on an island by oneself without the social benefit of division of labor, or without an agreed upon framework for social interactions.
(2) How does regulation of the commons fit within his framework, if at all?
This includes open source software, data, scientific research, open source curriculum, and fishing , grazing, and water use limits. Is he saying these acts are immoral because these things are given away freely or that they shouldn't have compromised their short term fishing, grazing, or water use, for long term gain of a regulated commons? It looks like he takes the short term, limited view of ethical and economic decisions rather the longer and wider view.
Yes, in a society of free individuals!
Fascism isn't limited to antisemitism.I've read Hayek and what he's written has supported "emergency powers" to ensure capitalism isn't ended via revolution. He simply extended this with his support of Pinochet, the fascist, in order to protect capitalism in places where the left was strong. Hayek supported fascism. There's no explaining your/his way out of it. And you haven't read Perelman or you'd understand why early classical liberals had to abandon their free market ideology.
Social justice is a broad topic and as it is used by American Marxist's never covers all of the ground that it ought to? One of the blatantly left out features of the cry for social justice is the rights of employers? And if so what are they? The social justice preachers never approach or address this element? It is not in their interests to do so? It goes against the grain of their real goal and ambition? Or is it social justice to have someone decide to waste their life away on drugs and promiscuity and then after the consequences of such a licentious life style take effect demand that society carry the burden of medical care and other forms of welfare? Or again when the OWS mob came to town and turned coffee shop bathrooms into sewers leaving the poor fast food worker to clean their disgusting mess? Of course you can see the social justice there? We can multiply examples of those glaring omissions of whats become the farce of social justice and its Marxist underpinnings in this age. But when you have a view of life that begins and ends with materialism and the value placed upon it then you are left, no pun intended, to think in such brute terms. Man soars with such high and glorious ideals only to wind up in the gutter of an existential futility. Not that all liberal thinking is wrong or bad but so much of it is misguided and does not flourish on the timeless virtue of character, integrity and good morals.
In the Bible it say Charity should come from all and if you give no matter where it comes from.
There is certainly not an equal personal sacrifice or work contribution by citizens....so how could it possibly be just for an equal outcome?!?
Like listening to children discuss right and wrong
What Hayek ignores (at least in this exchange) is the impact of entrenched privilege under law. In particular is the existence of landed privilege that enables the landed to claim an increasing share of what producers produce without offering anything in exchange except access to nature that under law they control. As John Locke observed (and Adam Smith confirmed) the private appropriation of the rent of land is a redistribution of wealth, again, from producers to non-producers. To solve this problem, Smith urged societies to look to the rent of land as THE source of societal revenue.
I agree that the Federal Government needs to give back the land to the people so everybody could become a land owner.
Self Stirring Pot your comment makes little sense in that people would buy and sell land and after a certain point it would be the same as it is now.
Edward Dodson, no Hayek understands your privilege comment... overwhelming evidence if you look through U.S. history how many people came from dirt poor backgrounds and became the richest in the country... Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, James J. Hill, and on and on. Most generations lose the wealth by spending and not having the drive of the original person. Also if you look at how immigrants and first generation Americans do against people who have inherited wealth you will see that there is no entrenched privilege to uphold the nonsense of "social justice"
Dividendstock fish
I can only refer you to Adam Smith's presentation of how rent arises in societies as population increases the competition for land that offers the highest level of natural advantage (or, in cities, is located centrally in the financial districts). When such sites are fully claimed and only land of less potential productivity is available, the best land yields rent a an unearned claim on what is produced. When an individual or entity gains control of enough such sites, they are able to collect rents to meet their consumption needs without having to produce anything in return. If society was to collect this rent to pay for public goods and services, there would be no justification for taxing earned income flows and material goods produced. Moreover, land prices would be quite low because there is no imputed rental income stream to be capitalized by market forces. Again, I direct you to Adam Smith. Or, for a modern analysis I recommend economist Mason Gaffney.
Self Stirring Pot
Giving land to the people, as a program of land redistribution, never achieves the desired result. Not everyone is able to put land to its highest, best use. The far better approach is to fully collect the potential annual rental value of land (and land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum and take-off and landing slots at airports, and taxi medallions). From this societal fund, there is likely to be sufficient funds to provide a citizens dividend to everyone. Some economists estimate that rent comprises one-third of GDP.
he was just doing his job as host ... he was not advocating just putting out the arguments the other side use in order to frame their positions
No I havent read it but I have read "The invention of capitalism" by Michael Perelman which explains why early classical liberals had no choice but to go against their "free market" ideals in order to facilitate actual capitalism. Give it a read. It's free online. It also gives insight into why Hayek supported fascism.
gov run school is rich people lowering the bar on everyone that cant afford to get in to private school, gov run school is a conflict to liberty in the republic of the usa, without government in the way the technology of the best private schools would be emulated by the others vary fast in the modern world.
Hey, it's the guy from Dr. Strangelove.
Hayek sounds exactly what I imagine Arthur Schopenhauer would sound like
He's discussing globalism . . Alex Jones would like this
AJ had faith in ron paul, but now he thinks trump will be the best president ever LOL
+Andre Barros
Not a lot of presidential candidates speak out about The Fed, political correctness, and social justice like he does though. The fact he got elected actually makes it understandable that Alex is excited about Donald.
he's just a populist who said the rights things to get elected if you look at any of his interviews before he ran he's completely different.
Actually, he is discussing the socialist calculation problem. Not "globalism."
And that's a recommendation ?!
People nowadays are so brainwashed they cannot listen to Hayek. I would even be happy if they knew that Friedrich von Hayek lived and his ideas lived on.
I like how all three of them are wearing Adam Smith ties
oh, my, this guy is great!
Isn't justice decided upon by its own merits? Hence why there is a judge or magistrates present (in the English common law as it has evolved at least) to thrash out the particular specificities and circumstances of each case; this indicates the unique nature of injustices doesn't it, otherwise judicial punishment would be meted out without arbitration?
Of course, being born in an English speaking country helps when communicating in English, and English wasn't really as big in Europe when Hayek grew up, as it is today.
It seems that John Rawls lost his time writting his classical work on social justice.
very successful people who become multimillionaires eventually get to a point where money doesn't add material happiness anymore. they then are naturally inclined to do charity, give money to medical research, provide shelter for homeless people, or others. that is just how it goes. we want to become rich, and when we do, we want other people to become rich too.
if the government makes higher taxes for the rich, less people will be helped, companies won't get the incentives to grow and provide extra jobs, and charities will be meager. taking money from rich people makes more harm than good. rich people can give a hand for the needy for self develpment much more than the government can. voluntary relations are, at the end, more efficient than central social justice.
It was for the cold war. He actually believed that the economic basket case called the Soviet Union was a threat.
he favored "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy,"
"large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington - even with Truman at the reins of it all."
Time has proven Hayek right
So, justice is an attribute of an individual action, we can agree on that. So, when a business owner takes an unjustly enormous cut out of the profit made by work his employee does, he is being unjust to that employee. So, he is acting unjustly towards all his employees individually - that is social injustice.
Also, one of the arguments here is that the richest shouldn't be taxed because taking away someones income with not stimulate them to be productive...yet the reason those people are the richest is because they take away the biggest part of other people's income. So, it's important to insentivize the owners, but it is irrelevant to insentivize the workers, who bring the actual skills and knowledge necessary for work? It's like bending over backwards to provide an intellectual-sounding excuse why the rich should just take everything we have and we shouldn't complain about it - we may even want to give up our entire wages so they can be further stimulated to be "productive".
Also - you cannot decide for anyone else, like China cannot decide to take money from the US to help their problems...yet, this same principle doesn't apply to, surprise surprise, the rich business owners, since they can decide for each of their employees how much money they are allowed to have. Funny how no principle can be applied on every level.
What's "unjust" is your own subjective opinion. You would not be able to give a quantitative precise number as to what would be a "just" compensation. You would produce any random number, none better than another one produced by someone else that's more greedy.
@@Stonecoldfrank So, me robbing an old couple of their life savings would not be unjust, for example? It would be totally arbitrary to label that as unjust or put any kind of quantifier as to how unjust it is?
@@vebdaklu You can't rob anyone of their life's savings. What the hell are you talking about?
@@vebdaklu And by the way, that's what the Government does when it prints (counterfeit) money and devalues the currency, it reduces the value of whatever savings you have. That's a power that's way beyond the purview of any private institution. But the Government does so anyway because that's the manner by which it can redistribute wealth around without having to directly tax people.