Home Civil Liberty So George Monbiot Doesn't Understand Hayek At All Then?

So George Monbiot Doesn’t Understand Hayek At All Then?

Author

Comments

George Monbiot wants to tell us that there are two forms of capitalism, the slash and burn and the accommodating. That’s possible. Might even be a useful distinction in fact. There are Randroids out there after all.

The thing is he manages to get Hayek on entirely the wrong side of that division:

The second could be described as warlord capitalism. This sees all restraints on accumulation – including taxes, regulations and the public ownership of essential services – as illegitimate. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of profit-making. Its justifying ideology was formulated by Friedrich Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty and by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. These books sweep away social complexity and other people’s interests. They fetishise something they call “liberty”, which turns out to mean total freedom for plutocrats, at society’s expense.

Hmm, well. Here’s a summary of Hayek:

In the final part of The Constitution of Liberty Hayek examines
many areas of contemporary policy concern – social security,
taxation, healthcare, housing, urban planning, natural
resources and education – in light of the principles developed
in the earlier parts of his study. Two features stand out: Hayek
is willing for government to provide a broad range of social
services, in line with principles enunciated above; and he
steadfastly opposes policies that aim at wealth redistribution
or ‘social justice’.

So, err, not what Monbiot thinks at all then.

Hayek does not favour passive government, but rather one
that seeks many benefits for the community. Although he
shares the‘strong presumption against governments actively
participating in economic efforts’, he nonetheless states that
the‘old formulae of laissezfaire or non-intervention do not
provide us with an adequate criterion for distinguishing
between what is and what is not admissible in a free system’.
As he explains, ‘it is the character rather than the volume
of government activity that is important’. In economic
matters, for example, an active government that assists the
spontaneous forces of the market is preferable to a less active
one that does the wrong things. In this regard he sees himself
as following the best of the classical liberals, such as Adam
Smith.

Actually, nothing at all like what Monbiot describes. And that’s just from the Hayek book that Monbiot himself refers us to.

My assumption is that Hayek is just an oogie boogie for George, a phantastical and entirely invented exemplar of what ever it is that Monbiot doesn’t like. Dunno, maybe the Nanny used to dress up in a Friedrich mask to frighten him or summat.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

4 COMMENTS

  1. “Freedom and responsibility cannot be separated. Responsibility means that each individual must bear the
    consequences of his actions. Hayek’s ‘individuals’ are thoroughly enmeshed in social relations.”

    Moonbat really needs to do some research

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

So Bjorn Lomborg Is Proven Right Once Again

Back when Bjorn Lomborg brought out the Sceptical Environmentalist my word how people laughed. He pointed out that well, actually, solar power had been...

So, That Answers The Question About Arun Advani Then

Arun Advani was on that Wealth Tax Commission. You know, the one that ended up saying that it would be just fine to have...

An Entirely Absurd Insistence About Oil Company Pay

The claim is that as oil company CEOs are paid with stock therefore they conspire to boil the planet. That is, no really, what...

Big Meat Is The Next Enemy After Big Oil

We would, perhaps, hope for a little more logical ability among those who write the newspapers and news sites for us. Take this example...

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

Recent comments