John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free…
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
It just occurred to me that when Hayek wrote "Road to Serfdom" he probably never realized that serfdom would be caused by his own ideology.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
Which sounds like an oxymoron. Seems that Trump though would like to fiddle as he sees fit. Sounds like a set up to me.