PDA

View Full Version : F.A. Hayek-- 'Why I am not a conservative'



Soflasnapper
06-21-2011, 06:47 PM
From 1960. (http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46)

[...]

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.

2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.

This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.

[...]

cushioncrawler
06-21-2011, 08:28 PM
I dont understand this stuff. Miss-use of "liberal" and "conservation" and "socializm" might be the main reason.
But i feel sure that Hayek iznt on the korrekt path.

Greens are the way to go. Giv me a nice intelligent athiest greeny any day. The future iz Greens.
mac.

Qtec
06-21-2011, 09:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. </div></div>

As opposed to the present US Conservative movement who wants to go backwards.

Q

llotter
06-22-2011, 11:03 AM
As a big Hayek fan, thanks for posting that, he is always interesting to read. But, the reader needs to understand that he was writing about England of 50 years ago and therefor has to interpret the use of words that have changed over time and place.

Here, today, liberalism and socialism have become one and the same though they are loath to admit it. It has often been said of conservatives that they seem to be satisfied to slow down train that is headed over a cliff which is the point Hayek was making. More recently a split has been occurring among 'ruling class', RINO 'conservatives' and the rest of us that are no longer satisfied with placebos as a substitute for cures. No longer is it adequate to talk about 'limited government', we want those limits to be within the Enumerated Powers.

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a big Hayek fan, thanks for posting that, he is always interesting to read. But, the reader needs to understand that he was writing about England of 50 years ago and therefor has to interpret the use of words that have changed over time and place.

Here, today, liberalism and socialism have become one and the same though they are loath to admit it. It has often been said of conservatives that they seem to be satisfied to slow down train that is headed over a cliff which is the point Hayek was making. More recently a split has been occurring among 'ruling class', RINO 'conservatives' and the rest of us that are no longer satisfied with placebos as a substitute for cures. No longer is it adequate to talk about 'limited government', we want those limits to be within the Enumerated Powers. </div></div>

The fact that people like you, and the far right, have sought to redefine words to cover up your hidden agendas, and massive failed policies, does not mean that everyone has bought into your rewriting of the dictionary.

Most of you don't even know what Socialism is, and it surely isn't the Affordable Health Care Act.

Funniest thing I've ever seen was the Tea Partiers, calling the Affordable Health Care Act, Socialism, LMAO! Hoding up those ridiculous signs, NO SOCIALISM! DON"T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!

Funny part of your post, is that you obviously don't realize what you are! None of you righties, do.

LOL...

G.

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. </div></div>

As opposed to the present US Conservative movement who wants to go backwards.

Q </div></div>

Some from the Libertarian group, also want to go backwards, IMHO.

G.

llotter
06-22-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NO SOCIALISM! DON"T TOUCH MY MEDICARE! </div></div>

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you think this is funny??

Gayle in MD
06-22-2011, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NO SOCIALISM! DON"T TOUCH MY MEDICARE! </div></div>

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you think this is funny??

</div></div>

The Affordable Health Care Act, was NOT socialism, at all.
Try to wrap your brain around this. Just because REpiglicans have to attempt to redefine words, in order to cover up their own anti-American policies, and corporate welfare, at the huge cost to the Nation's Economy, does not mean that are ever telling the truth.

The first step in your recovery, should be to stop getting all of your information from RW propaganda sources.

Secondly, realize that our Constitution never mentions the word GOD, and our Founders, clearly stated, this country was founded on the principle of The Separation Of Church And State, should be that hard to understand, since many came here to escape the horrors of religious dictation, which were often sought through violence, just as is still the case of Radical Islam.

IOW, Repiglicans prove their own Anti-Constitutional policies, by using the Religious right, to cover up their true intentions, which are clearly to turn this country into a fascist nation, where only the wealthy succeed, or have any power.

Everything they do, proves it. Corporate Welfare, is destroying us, and we have a radical Activist RW Supreme Court, which is pushing the Fascist Agenda, forward.

Organized REligion, has no right to seek to dictate to all others, according to their views. That, in and of itself, flies in the fact of the principles that our country was founded upon.

As James Madison, and thomas Jefferson have written, in so many words, The separation (Of church and state) must be perfect, and complete, or neither will survive.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Jefferson:

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' <span style='font-size: 17pt'>thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." </span>Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of la´citÚ has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.[2]
</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> recd in due time, the printed copy of your Convention sermon on the relation of Xnity to Civil Gov' with a manuscript request of my opinion on the subject.
There appears to be in the nature of man what insures his belief in an invisible cause of his present existence, and anticipation of his future existence. Hence the propensities & susceptibilities in that case of religion which with a few doubtful or individual exceptions have prevailed throughout the world.


The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of the Govt from interference in any way whatever
Waiving the rights of Conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social State, and more or less invaded by all religious Establishments, the simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it. And on this question experience will be an admitted Umpire, the more adequate as the connection between Govts & Religion have existed in such various degrees & forms, and now can be compared with examples where connection has been entirely dissolved.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts</span>.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.</span>Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for granted, that an exclusive & intolerant establishment was essential, and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that Religion could not be preserved without the support of Govt nor Govt be supported with an established religion that there must be a least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test.

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R. I, N. J., Penna, and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there were no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the religious condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with that where establishments existed.

As it may be suggested that experiments made in Colonies more or less under the Control of a foreign Government, had not the full scope necessary to display their tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made to their effects under a complete exemption from any such Control.

It is true that the New England States have not discontinued establishments of Religion formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced towards the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to Religion or good Government.

And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to the Declaration of independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; and since that event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support by the people, it may be said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast in the greater purity & industry of the Pastors and in the greater devotion of their flocks, in the latter period than in the former. In Virginia the contrast is particularly striking, to those whose memories can make the comparison. It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in account for the change in the Religious character of the community. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was withdrawn sufficiently prove that it does not need the support of Govt and it will scarcely be contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.</span>

The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to itself may into extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides the question whether the interference of Govt in any form wd not be more likely to increase than Control the tendency, it is a safe calculation that in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually regain its ascendancy. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than to vibrate to the opposite extreme.

Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that Religion, if left to itself, will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it than that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse. Some monitory examples have already appeared.

Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably maintained yours. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by others.</span>

I owe you Sir an apology for the delay in complying with the request of my opinion on the subject discussed in your sermon; if not also for the brevity & it may be thought crudeness of the opinion itself. I must rest the apology on my great age now in its 83rd year, with more than the ordinary. infirmities, and especially on the effect of a chronic Rheumatism, combined with both, which makes my hand & fingers as averse to the pen as they are awkward in the use of it.

Be pleased to accept Sir a tender of my cordial & respectful salutations.




Page 1



</div></div>

eg8r
06-22-2011, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Affordable Health Care Act, was NOT socialism, at all.
</div></div>There is no better example. That bill is the picture put in the dictionary next to the word socialism.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-24-2011, 12:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. </div></div>

As opposed to the present US Conservative movement who wants to go backwards.

Q </div></div>

Yep, in every way, including all the way back to teetering on the brink of the Bush Depression:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Digg Reddit StumbleUpon ShareThis Thursday, Jun 23, 2011 12:58 ET
War Room Top Republican Cantor exits budget talks
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
AP Photo/J. Scott ApplewhiteMajority Leader Eric Cantor said Thursday that Democratic demands that some tax increases be paired with the spending cuts have brought budget negotiations led by Vice President Joe Biden to an impasse. Cantor said he's pulling out of the talks.

The Virginia Republican said in a statement that the Republican-dominated House simply won't support tax increases, and that he wouldn't participate in the budget meeting scheduled for Thursday. Cantor said that it's time for President Barack Obama to weigh in directly on the budget because Democrats insist on negotiating some tax increases.

Continue reading
A spokesman for Jon Kyl of Arizona, who's representing Senate Republicans in the talks, said Kyl would not attend Thursday's scheduled meeting either.

The moves seem aimed at drawing Obama more directly into the talks. Cantor expressed frustration earlier this week that the president had not been more involved. Whether the tactic generates hard feelings that could jeopardize an agreement remains to be seen.

Cantor said that plenty of progress has been made in identifying trillions of dollars in potential spending cuts to accompany legislation to raise the $14.3 trillion cap on the government's ability to borrow money. Passage of the legislation this summer is necessary to meet the government's obligations to holders of U.S. Treasuries. The alternative is a market-shaking, first-ever default on U.S. obligations.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said that including tax increases on the wealthy is only fair, and that he's disappointed that Cantor has left the talks.

Baucus said that almost every deficit reduction deal in the past has involved a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. He said upper income Americans have seen a significant increase in wealth, so balancing the budget only through cuts in programs that serve the middle class and the poor is not fair.

"Revenues must be included so everyone can participate in addressing a critical national problem," Baucus said.

Cantor said that once the tax issue is solved, negotiators could quickly seal agreement.

"It is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve this tax issue," Cantor said. "Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here."

The Biden-led group has been meeting since early May, trying to come up with areas of agreement on curbing a budget deficit that's requiring the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Areas of tentative agreement include trimming farm subsidies, auctioning electromagnetic spectrum to communications companies, and cutting student loan subsidies.

But with Republicans unwilling to accept some higher taxes -- even in the wake of a sweeping Senate vote to eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy -- Democrats were unwilling to agree to tougher steps like curbing Medicare and Medicaid.

All along, it was anticipated that the Biden group would only be able to get so far and that the toughest decisions, such as taxes and cuts to federal health care programs, would be kicked upstairs to Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. That duo sealed agreement in April on legislation to fund the government through the end of September.

"I would to expect to hear from (Obama)," Boehner said Thursday. Of Cantor's decision, Boehner said: "I understand why he did what he did. I think those talks could continue if they're willing to take the tax hikes off the table."

There are only 5 1/2 weeks remaining until an Aug. 2 deadline for enacting an increase in the nation's debt limit to prevent a U.S. default. Economists warn that could damage the nation's credit rating and force the government to pay higher interest rates to continue to borrow the $125 billion a month it needs to finance its operations.

But increasing the borrowing cap is a politically poisonous vote for lawmakers, especially the tea party-backed Republicans controlling the House. Even while there's agreement between Obama and top congressional leaders that the debt cap simply has to be raised, a majority of the public -- especially core conservative GOP supporters -- says the debt limit shouldn't be lifted.

------

AP writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this story.


</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

U.K.'s Austerity Program is killing their economy, raising costs, and destroying a recovery.

Repugs always spend when they shouldn't and cut when they shouldn't.

They simply cannot handle money!

G.