Beck and Hayek... yes, Hayek dude!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck and Hayek... yes, Hayek dude!

Here is the another show where Beck is doing some more heavy lifting that Objectiivsts and libertarians should be doing for the common person (the vast majority in America).

The show below (June 8, 2010), is about The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. I was going to say that Beck was going to push this book to No. 1 in sales on Amazon, but as of this posting, he already did it. This book is No. 1 bestseller on Amazon right now.

Amazing...

For the libertarian nay-sayers about Beck, how's these apples? Beck interviewed in this show Thomas E. Woods, a Senior Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Yup. A Mises dude.

And he interviewed Yuri Maltsev, professor of economics at Carthage College (Wisconsin). This guy was a Russian and he defected to the USA. He risked his life to read Hayek's book in the 1970's in Soviet Russia.

Both of these gentlemen are best-selling authors in their own right.

Oh yes... and for the Objectivist nay-sayers, Beck plugged Atlas Shrugged a few times during the show...

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Here is a partial transcript of the show on Beck's site: The Road to Serfdom.

If you have never read The Road to Serfdom and want to know a little of the backstory behind it, Beck's show is a very good overview and introduction.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

I just watched all of the segments. Remarkable. Beck has probably done more to popularize the ideas of Hayek in one program than libertarians have done over the past 20 years.

Thanks for posting these.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Beck and Hayek... yes, Hayek dude!

Here is the another show where Beck is doing some more heavy lifting that Objectiivsts and libertarians should be doing for the common person (the vast majority in America).

Being an Objectivist can mean being too satisfied in being such. Manana for everyone else--if they live that long. And the more people that are Objectivists?--the less special to be an Objectivist. Way back then there were only two. This is the establishment of a religion--or the oblivious attempt--and why Peikoff has become known as the "Pope" of Objectivism (by the Lutherans?).

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Mark Levin promotes Hayek and to a lesser extent, AR.

His radio show on AM has millions of listeners. He is a constitutional expert and self-proclaimed conservative. Aside from his religious beliefs, he presents a strong argument for limited government and greater freedom.

[sbeaulieu]

Definitely worth the time.

Final thought...this is "THE" United States. It is NOT Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or any other socialist hotbed. Are the liberals so blind that they cannot see the condition these people live in? And they see that as a prosperous future for Americans?

~ Shane

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael,

In correspondence with Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand stated that Hayek was “an example of our most pernicious enemy . . . real poison” because he “preached contradictory ideas” in defense of capitalism. For this reason, she felt he was “more harmful than 100% enemies.”

An example, from Ayn Rand’s Marginalia:

Hayek: “ This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society, and that, since, strictly speaking, scales of value can exist only in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist—scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other. From this, the individualist concludes that the individuals should be allowed, within very defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s; that within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others…”

Rand: “Oh God damn the total complete vicious bastard! This means that man does exist for others, but since he doesn’t know how to do it, the masters will give him some 'defined limits' for himself. If that’s the essence, this is why individualism has failed.”

Elsewhere in her marginalia, she refers to Hayek as a "damn collectivist," a “damn idiot,” an “abysmal fool,” and an “ass.’ She states: "He doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism."

According to Sciabarra and Sechrest, Roy Childs once reported that Hayek, much like Beck, “rather admired Atlas Shrugged.”

Count me among the Beck nay-sayers.

[anonrobt]

Definitely worth the time.

Final thought...this is "THE" United States. It is NOT Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or any other socialist hotbed. Are the liberals so blind that they cannot see the condition these people live in? And they see that as a prosperous future for Americans?

~ Shane

Actually, it is THESE United States...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I had already read that by Rand (and some other choice words).

Here's me: I don't agree with her on this point.

Not at all.

I think she is trying to be a control freak here. (And this is said by a person who loves Rand.)

I'll give you a thought on the substance. I believe that in today's context, Barack Obama and the progressives are a far more "most pernicious enemy . . . real poison" than Hayek ever could be. (I say "Obama" because he is in evidence, but in reality, he's just a front man for some really nasty intellectual pieces of work.) In fact, as a bridge from that abyss, I believe Hayek is a very good one.

And no, I do not see Hayek as having caused Obama & Co., as could be insinuated by Rand. They came with their own will and causes. I certainly can't think of anything similar to Hayek before the communist takeover of Russia, China, etc. Nor can I think of anything similar to him as a failed defense against communism in those places.

So where's the poison? Where's the danger? I don't see substance in Rand's melodramatic bashing of Hayek. Disagreement on the nature of man, OK. But the idea that Hayek is poison is not supported by any concretes I can find--and I mean social impact kind of concretes. That invalidates any danger component in her concept of Hayek--using as standard her own epistemology.

Beck is getting people to think for themselves. He constantly tells people stuff like the following (as he did in this show--but not an exact quote), "See for yourself. Don't even believe in what I say. Go read this stuff yourself."

How can that ever be bad?

He made a big deal about asking when any of us ever did something like risk our lives to read a book. And it makes you stop. Can we even imagine it? Most of the American public avoids reading books. So the idea of anyone risking his/her life to be able to read one hits home.

I hold that the bad is not exposure to an idea you can agree with--and disagree with some parts of if you so think. I hold that the bad is when someone wants to shield you from certain ideas because they want to think for you. They want to control your thoughts. They are so afraid you will not arrive at their conclusion that they don't want you to use your brain on your own.

That is the real enemy, even here in O-Land.

btw - Did you watch the show? If not, give it a try. It might surprise you.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Rand: “Oh God damn the total complete vicious bastard! This means that man does exist for others, but since he doesn’t know how to do it, the masters will give him some 'defined limits' for himself. If that’s the essence, this is why individualism has failed.”

Elsewhere in her marginalia, she refers to Hayek as a "damn collectivist," a “damn idiot,” an “abysmal fool,” and an “ass.’ She states: "He doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism."

According to Sciabarra and Sechrest, Roy Childs once reported that Hayek, much like Beck, “rather admired Atlas Shrugged.”

Count me among the Beck nay-sayers.

As the Sciabarra/Sechrest article makes clear, Rand expressed great admiration for Mises. Yet Mises was a Kantian in his epistemology, a determinist, and a utilitarian who emphatically rejected the notion of natural rights. Would you therefore condemn Mises in the same manner that Rand condemned Hayek?

There are plenty of things in Hayek's writings that an Objectivist will take issue with, but his contributions to the theory of spontaneous order are invaluable.

As for Rand's condemnation of Hayek as a "damn collectivist" who "doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism" -- you surely don't agree with this, do you?

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

As for Rand's condemnation of Hayek as a "damn collectivist" who "doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism" -- you surely don't agree with this, do you?

Ghs

That is "this". The Rand made the judgment of Hayek or that the judgment is correct?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[algernonsidney]

Part of the brilliance of that little book is that Hayek explained it in terms that people can easily understand. Yes, Rand didn't like Hayek--I am still not sure why though.

I know a lot of people who are turned off by the sheer size of Rand's novels. This is the main reason why I direct them to Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I do think that Road to Serfdom is an easier book. I can't find any real flaw with the book, although it's been a long time since I read it (1991 or 1992).

Hayek never really reached out to libertarians anyway, although libertarians have always respected him.

The other thing I love about the book is that it is an important reminder of the true meaning of the word liberal. Far too many libertarians have surrendered that word, even though it is a word that will always belong to them.

[sbeaulieu]

Part of the brilliance of that little book is that Hayek explained it in terms that people can easily understand. Yes, Rand didn't like Hayek--I am still not sure why though.

Chris,

I was giving this some thought when Dennis mentioned Ayn's dislike/hatred of Hayek. My suggestion would be this...Objectivism is Ayn's baby. Any thoughts diverting from her views were probably seen as the anithesis of Objectivism, no matter the commonalities of her contemporary peers/persons.

We as Objectivists are not railed into that line of thought (as none of us are in 100% agreeance with Ayn...except maybe the ARIans). Since Objectivism isn't sourced from us, we have the flexibility to consider others outside O'ism as influences striving for individualism.

All do not travel the same road, but seek the same destination...

~ Shane

Edited June 10, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[9thdoctor]

I was giving this some thought when Dennis mentioned Ayn's dislike/hatred of Hayek.

Here's her comment on Hayek: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&view=findpost&p=96990

[Dennis Hardin]

So where's the poison? Where's the danger? I don't see substance in Rand's melodramatic bashing of Hayek. Disagreement on the nature of man, OK. But the idea that Hayek is poison is not supported by any concretes I can find--and I mean social impact kind of concretes. That invalidates any danger component in her concept of Hayek--using as standard her own epistemology.

Beck is getting people to think for themselves. He constantly tells people stuff like the following (as he did in this show--but not an exact quote), "See for yourself. Don't even believe in what I say. Go read this stuff yourself."

How can that ever be bad?

Michael:

The poison is collectivism. Hayek is no more of an advocate of individualism than any other hack economist, as far as I can tell. He just happens to think capitalism allocates all our resources really well. I can’t imagine why an Objectivist would be a fan of his. The moral stature of the individual is minimal from that point of view—and expendable.

I found Beck entertaining for a while, but it got old really quick. If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to push his analysis to a deeper level than “faith, hope and charity.” His unthinking religiosity is so brain-dead that I stopped watching. I just couldn’t take it any more.

Beck acts like he does not expect to be taken seriously. He used to have Yaron Brook on his show a lot, but that stopped, probably because of Beck’s rabid, knee-jerk antagonism to atheism. BTW, I did watch part of your video. It’s nice to see Beck waving Atlas Shrugged around on national TV. I just find it really hard to believe he ever read it.

Looking at him, I have to wonder if he has ever checked a premise in his life.

[Dennis Hardin]

As the Sciabarra/Sechrest article makes clear, Rand expressed great admiration for Mises. Yet Mises was a Kantian in his epistemology, a determinist, and a utilitarian who emphatically rejected the notion of natural rights. Would you therefore condemn Mises in the same manner that Rand condemned Hayek?

There are plenty of things in Hayek's writings that an Objectivist will take issue with, but his contributions to the theory of spontaneous order are invaluable.

As for Rand's condemnation of Hayek as a "damn collectivist" who "doesn't really believe in competition, in capitalism or in individualism" -- you surely don't agree with this, do you?

Ghs

George,

I will be the first to admit that the reading I have done in the field of economics is limited. I find it tedious. Perhaps Mises has written some crap that is just as bad as Serfdom, and maybe Hayek has written better. From what I have read, though, Rand appears to be correct in her assessment (although I bet she would strangle Peikoff with her bare hands if she ever found out that he allowed her comments to be published verbatim).

Hayek’s whole approach seems to begin and end with: “What is the best approach to rational planning?” He answers:

“The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge…of which we must make use exists… solely as the dispersed bits… which all the separate individuals possess. “

That is collectivism, in my view: Starting out with the premise of looking for the most practical way to “allocate the resources.” I have seen articles where socialists use Hayek’s arguments to make their own case, showing where his calculations about the practicality of individual choice went wrong, and therefore socialism is the preferable system. As far as I can tell, he has absolutely no grasp of the moral significance of individual freedom.

I am no expert on Austrian economics, but as I understand Mises, he clearly emphasizes the connection between political freedom and economic freedom and that one cannot survive without the other. I question whether Hayek grasps that connection, but I could be wrong about that. My sense is that if someone could convince Hayek of the economic practicality of totalitarianism, he might well switch sides.

Again, I am no expert here, but when I read Mises I get a much better sense of classical liberalism's political perspective on freedom. By contrast, Hayek comes across to me like someone who sees individualism as nothing more than an economic formula which happens to work.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He used to have Yaron Brook on his show a lot, but that stopped, probably because of Beck's rabid, knee-jerk antagonism to atheism.

Dennis,

Actually, Beck is going to have Yaron Brook on his show next week when he does a full show on Atlas Shrugged (I think it is going to be called "From Fiction to Reality" or something like that). I knew he was going to do that show, but I did not know Brook was going to be guest interviewee on it.

Both Kat and I found that out today because we went to see a lecture by Yaron Brook under the auspices of ARC here in Chicago and the lady who introduced him announced it. (He was preening a bit when when the applause erupted, too. Yup. Preening over being on Glenn Beck's show. In the entertainment world, we would say he was soaking it up. )

Interestingly enough, Brook had some good things to say about Hayek--giving special emphasis to Hayek's notion that central planning doesn't work because it can't work due to too many variables--and even recommended people to read a couple of authors from the Cato Institute. He also said good things about Mises (and told people to read him), but not so good things about the organizations that have evolved from him.

(For the record, he thinks the big mistake with libertarians--Cato, Mises, and others--is that they exclude morality from their defense of capitalism.)

I was there. Kat too. We saw it.

It will probably be on the ARI site or wherever they post these things later since it was filmed.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Just the Facts, Ma'am

> Hayek...is actually middle-of-the-roader. He is for a mixed economy and, therefore, a great favorite among the liberals.

That Rand quote would be a very different reason to object to the book, if that is what the book is. In other words, if Hayek is like Friedman in wanting just a bit smaller government, that's not nearly as worth getting enthused about than if he is like Mises an advocate of Laissez-Faire.

So: Who here has *actually read* a lot of Hayek and can answer, specifically, whether he is an advocate of Laissez-Faire or is he closer to Friedman or to Mises on the role of government?

Facts first.

Opinions pro or anti-Hayek later.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another Beck show.

I don't want to keep doing this with entire shows since anyone can see him on TV or go to The Daily Beck, but this show presented one of the best social overviews of what is now happening with President Obama and the Democratic Party that I have ever encountered. (For those who go to The Daily Beck, it is the show of June 9, 2010.)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Some of the highlights that stood out to me:

Right now Obama is in danger, which is probably why he made the ass-kicking remark. The problem is that after the election yesterday, it is clear to the far left side of his supporters that the game is up. But they know that they still have power until the elections. So the time to act is now.

One of the things you never want to do with true believers is to promise them something and then not deliver. They will get royally pissed at you and they will act.

According to Beck's analysis, the run-of-the-mill politicians (Clinton, Gore, possibly Obama, etc.)--who are basically peaceful and only want money and power--have been using the far left to get it, while the far left--who truly believe in their cause, don't care all that much about money, and don't mind a lot of blood spilling--have been using the Democratic politicians to get near enough to power to stage the revolution they keep preaching about.

They have been gaming each other and now that the power is in danger of evaporating, hostilities in the Democratic Party are coming between them and only one will be left standing. One side doesn't like bloodshed and the other doesn't mind it at all.

Not good...

One of the most important things Beck said is that when people believe strongly in a cause, really strongly, and they say they are going to do something, you have to take them seriously. And you don't want them to feel that you have betrayed them. That is a lesson that has been proven time and time again with history--Hitler, Lenin, etc.

Beck even said that one of the reasons so many people in the media don't get why his show has taken off is that he believes in something--truly believes with all his heart and may they kill him before he changes, as do his viewers--and the media doesn't believe in anything. So he's a mystery to them.

Once again Beck clamored in this show to not believe in what he says, for the viewer to check it all out for himself/herself. He mentioned a document that will probably become very important here in the USA over the next few months and offered a download on his site. So you can download a PDF of the modern-day Communist Manifesto on Beck's site here: Storm Handbook

If you want it, you better get it soon since he hinted that it would not stay up forever.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis,

Actually, Beck is going to have Yaron Brook on his show next week when he does a full show on Atlas Shrugged (I think it is going to be called "From Fiction to Reality" or something like that). I knew he was going to do that show, but I did not know Brook was going to be guest interviewee on it.

Both Kat and I found that out today because we went to see a lecture by Yaron Brook under the auspices of ARC here in Chicago and the lady who introduced him announced it.

Michael

Michael,

That's good news. I will make it a point to record the show and watch it.

"From Fiction to Reality" captures the essence of why someone like Beck would like Rand: her phenomenal genius at foretelling the events we see unfolding today. But will Beck demonstrate any insight into her integration of the events in the story and the destructive ideas underlying those events--i.e., the revolt against reason and the role of the mind in man's existence? I sincerely doubt it. The best we can hope for is that he will shut up long enough so that Brook can try to make that connection.

Even so, the show itself will be important for the same reason that the Atlas Shrugged movie will be important--exposing more and more potential readers to the writings of Ayn Rand.

[merjet]

I will be the first to admit that the reading I have done in the field of economics is limited.

That's obvious and your other remarks about Hayek look second-hand from unreliable sources. If you want some authentic understanding of Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order is a good start.

[Dennis Hardin]

I will be the first to admit that the reading I have done in the field of economics is limited.

That's obvious and your other remarks about Hayek look second-hand from unreliable sources. If you want some authentic understanding of Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order is a good start.

Gee, thanks. As to your recommendation for further reading, I would rather stick needles in my eyes.

[Philip Coates]

Let me rephrase a very simple question:

Who here has *actually read* a lot of Hayek and can answer, specifically, whether he is an advocate of Laissez-Faire

Is he closer to Milton Friedman in how much government he wants? Or to Ludwig Von Mises?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

The information you seek is probably in this quote from Wikipedia on Hayek:

Association with ordoliberalism

The libertarian economist Walter Block has observed critically that while the The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it appears only a lukewarm supporter of a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,^[18] with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".^[19] In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, and institutions for the flow of proper information. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism. Through analysis of this and many other of Hayek's works, Block asserts that: "in making the case against socialism, Hayek was led into making all sort of compromises with what otherwise appeared to be his own philosophical perspective—so much so, that if a system was erected on the basis of them, it would not differ too sharply from what this author explicitly opposed."^[18]

That is practically the essence of most Objectivist criticism as well.

Here's the condensed Reader's Digest 1945 version if you don't have it and want to read it yourself: The Road to Serfdom.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Let me rephrase a very simple question:

Who here has *actually read* a lot of Hayek and can answer, specifically, whether he is an advocate of Laissez-Faire

Is he closer to Milton Friedman in how much government he wants? Or to Ludwig Von Mises?

No, Hayek was not an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. In his most famous work, The Constitution of Liberty (1960), Hayek advocates all kinds of exceptions to laissez-faire. Perhaps his most egregious appears in Chapter Nineteen, "Social Security," where he argues as follows:

Regarding "public assistance or relief," Hayek says that the "necessity of some such arrangement in an industrial society is unquestioned -- be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy." But once a system of public relief is in place, it "is probably inevitable that this relief should not long be confined to those who themselves have not been able to provide against such needs (the 'deserving poor,' as they used to be called) and that the amount of relief should be more than is absolutely necessary to keep alive and in health." Therefore, because of the inevitability of free-riders, "it seems an obvious corollary to compel [individuals] to insure or otherwise provide against those common hazards of life." Hayek continues:

"The justification in this case is not that people should be coerced to do what is in their individual interest but that, by neglecting to make provision, they would become a charge to the public. Similarly, we require motorists to insure against third-party risks, not in their interest but in the interest of others who might be harmed by their action."

It gets worse, as Hayek says: "Finally, once the state requires everybody to make provision of a kind which only some had made before, it seems reasonable enough that the state should also assist in the development of appropriate institutions...."

Hayek's argument is the same justification that we find for the mandated private insurance of Obamacare. Yet, without blinking, Hayek concludes: "Up to this point the justification for the whole apparatus of 'social security' can probably be accepted by the most consistent defenders of liberty." What Hayek objects to, and what he regards as socialistic, occurred in Germany in the 1880s, where "individuals were not merely required to make provisions against those risks, but were compelled to obtain this protection through a unitary organization run by the government." In other words, Hayek would object only to the "single-payer" aspect of government mandated health care.

Although Hayek later became more libertarian on some issues -- for example, he abandoned his call for governmental control of the monetary system -- he never appears to have changed his mind on issues relating to "security," In the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty (1979, pp. 44-5), Hayek wrote: "The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall when he is unable to provide for himself, appears...to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all...."

Ghs

[algernonsidney]

deleted

Edited June 11, 2010 by Chris Baker