Bork and Hayek on so-called "Intellectuals"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2009
- A conversation between distinguished legal scholar Robert Bork and Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. F.A. Hayek.
Entire interviews are now available here:
hayek.ufm.edu/index.php?title=...
Excerpt from von Hayek, Friedrich & Robert Bork
www.freetochoose.net/store/pro...
FA Hayek was one of the greatest economists of all time. We all need to read his books and understand his ideas.
And this was before Bork died his hair blonde and became an icelandic singer. What a career he's had.
There is a fundamental difference between the power generated from government/politics and that built on economics. The inability to separate the two and to treat each of them as though they are the same, is what occurs in a mixed economy, which is really what most modern nations practice: a little capitalism here, a little socialism there, and then the left side argues for more socialism and the right side argues for more capitalism. What remains the same is the status quo.
The people who gain the most from this kind of pragmatic ideology, which is what a mixed economy is, are, well, pragmatic people. Whatever side works at the time, they hang on to and align themselves with. If it's 1930's after the great depression, they support the merits of socialism. If it's the 1980's and it's the Stagflation of the time, they support free markets. Inherently, those who maintain power are those who know that it's all B.S. and exploit it for power. Those who have ideals, principles, faith etc are the ones who get f*cked.
Welcome to America, the land of pragmatism.
I am new to listening to Bork, and I remember before I started paying attention to politics, when my father started educating me about the government he had doubts about, that Bork was denied a controversial appointment by the president. It was all over the news, but i never heard an explanation why bork's appointment by the president, either in the 1980's or 1990's, was so hotly contested. Could you share your opinion on Bork's controversy in washington? He seems more sensible than the clips I'm viewing of William F. Buckley, who my dad considered a pompous, egotistical person, who considered himself a superior type of person.
metalfiend124 He was opposed because he was a constitutionalists. He was appointed by Reagan, Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent him from getting on the Supreme Court. Reagan in an effort to appease the democrats named another person named Ginsberg(no relation to Ruth Bader). The Dems again fought tooth and nail. They found out that he had smoked a joint in the 60’s and brought that into the confirmation hearing. Eventually Reagan was able to get Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Im so thankful to the people who upload videos of Hayek. I wouldnt have learned so much if they hadnt existed.
Great clip. Two great men.
Wow what a gem discussion 2 intellectual giants
Why couldn't he live to be like 124.... We miss him dearly!
Hayek keeps focusing on the resistance to the idea, but it seems Bork is asking about the justification of the idea.
Intellectuals deny the austrian explanation, and in turn look for 'transparent' laws that would 'be directed towards good ends', and top down control is the only anwser (a mistaken one btw) under that assumption.
loved reading through your posts! :)
Do you have more from this interview?! .Please post! Thanks
Bork looks so young here! He should have been on the Supreme Court.
Thanks for the appreciation. You ll find me agreeing in that first sentence. But growing with two women, almost as raw as you can get with their emotional instability, I 've created a huge pool of patience towards "abusive thinkers" (as I call them due to their nature). To do that I had to create the concept of "freedom of choice" fairly early in my life, so I can't help it but expect from people who consider themselves intellectuals to always take an objective view of the matter at hand.
Thank you.
Solid argument, though I would love to hear a counter for it, is there one, have you yourself think of one? (there's no sarcasm here although it could look like it)
@HisokanoOkami I wasn't saying evolution requires faith; that was an analogy based on the argument you used. Saying that advocates of free markets rely on faith is as dishonest as claiming that evolution relies on faith.
The point of a state function is that people do not willingly support the use of resources for that purpose, so there is no way to gauge the value of its services.
The consolidation of corporate power is caused by government, not limited by it.
Bork should have become a supreme court justice. It is a shame we didn't have him on the courts.
Hayek does make an interesting point, and if you replace the word "intellectual" with "libretarian", the description is spot on.
The formula is simple. If the reality doesn't match the theory, then you have to throw out the theory. If the growth rate was higher between 1980 an d 2010, when we had 35% top tax bracket, you have to vote for supply side economics. If the growth rate was higher between 1945 and 1980 when you had 50% - 90% top tax bracket, you have to vote for keynesianism.
Even on a more personal level this is true. People are charitable not because they feel obligated, or are inherently inclined to be, but because it makes them feel good. There is only the illusion that humans are naturally altruistic. This is one of the great benefits of civilized society.
Watching the mind at work with such people as heyek and rand is simply amazing!
what neither speaker has addressed here is why the intellectuals have such a strong, ingrained predisposition towards regulation, towards government, and towards "liberal" causes. is there a good explanation for this uniformity of thinking?
A true zen statement... LOL
I'm listening to him talk/breathe with the sound of a rainstorm in the background.
while laughing at your statement and "Hayak"
love this.
I think Hayek makes an excellent point. Intellectuals are used to understanding how things work and take pride in their rationality, so when they see something happening and do not understand the mechanics of it their inclination is to dismiss it as nonsense. A proper empiricist or a 1st rate intellectual would judge from the measurable results, but the 2nd rate intellectual (which is most of them - especially outside their specialty) is too arrogant to acknowledge their ignorance.
@kensei85 Excellent points my friend!
i know hayek spent a lot of time on the theme of spontaneous order, so I want to point out something. it's qute ironic that marx who scoffed at "anarchy of production" felt that darwin's theories vindicated him and a social Darwinist like Hitler was a strong believer in central planning.
@HisokanoOkami Various rankings of economic freedom place several countries higher than the US, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada.
Considering that the South African government has been regulating the diamond trade since the 19th century and makes it illegal to own rough diamonds without a license (a law drafted by DeBeers founder, Cecil Rhodes), I'd say that example is a case in point.
What you describe as Menger's view, of altruism and selflessness as being part of selfishness, that is essentially Ayn Rand's view as well. She used severe and polemical language to express herself, as was just her way. Her point was to distinguish between benevolence - helping others by choice, by desire, which is "proper", as she would say - and what she called altruism, which was sacrificing out of guilt, or in response to coercion, which was a succumbing to and reinforcement of evil.
An interesting point.
Actually, no matter how much Rand emphasized our basic selfishness, she plainly stated that doing for others as one sees fit is a good thing, if a selfish thing itself. Obviously Menger is in agreement with her on this therefore, even if either or both would deny it for what I think are superficial reasons.
bork gave a really good interview with hayek
cont. n.4
Thus what he needs to offer, not only includes an initial heavy investement of both money and time to learn his trade and create the workplace (an opportunity for you to get a job), but also an even heavier one to manage the place.
He 's been putting more to it than you before the whole thing even began, so it's only fair he gets more than the postman.
If competition is what you want to dispute, I ll have to get in much greater length, which I won't do. 5 posts are already too much
haha no problem man, I love this debates I find that they stimulate my curiosity and the coat of arms is in fact spanish it supposedly is the coat of arms of my family's name cheers from mexico!
As it turns out, the growth rate was about 50% higher in the earlier period, which means that no matter how common sense austerity seems to be, it doesn't predict GDP growth.
Few deep thinkers of the last century have been as brilliant and impactful as von Hayek. In my humble view, he surpasses even Friedman. This video demonstrates just why.
Hayek was genius
All respect to Friedman but Hayek was just above all! Even Mises imo
@HisokanoOkami I agree, the universe is like the economy. It's not a great big complicated machine that works for our best interest if left alone. Eventually the universe is going to make this planet uninhabitable, the sun will go supernova, or space debris, right? Would you suggest we just die? Or should we come together as a people and try to survive it? That's all the state is, is a collection of people trying to find an equitable and reasonable way to live together.
Yes, in fact biologists have found this trait (empathy) present also in other animals, especially termites who engage in selfless acts (some even sacrifice themselves) for the survival of the colony..
There is a clash of moral values between efficiency and freedom, co-ops can't really compete with a highly hierarchical organizational structure with strong division of labor. And do you think existing business interests would allow co-ops in industries like energy or manufacturing etc.? History is absolutely clear on this, ever since the industrial revolutions the rich and the powerful have used all available means to suppress labor organization.
I never claimed that it's the definition of anarchy, but that's where you would find such extreme situations.
Nobody is forced to do anything, but you won't get stuff unless you earn it, that's life, deal with it. If you want something, get of your couch and earn it.
Socialism isn't sharing, it's stealing. Charity (very present in capitalist societies) is sharing, because it is voluntary.
Capitalism is not hoarding, it's healthy competition, which is the only thing that brings society forward
There's the academic definition of capitalism for the likes of Hayek and Bork, and there's how it is in reality. Even in theory I dislike it; some people own things and many people have no option to be owners of their labor and can only be wage laborers. And what freedom and what rights they can get is conditioned by the labor market. So you can rent yourself out to the highest bidder and that's the best you can do about individual freedom.
The same could be said of actual slavery in the 18th century. The slaves provided a service to their masters and they were remunerated; given food and shelter etc.
... continue...
Then consider, that not only I grabbed the opportunity to harvest an apple tree, but I had to fend off others (humans, insects, animals or even diseases) which both posed a risk to my safety and chucked away quite a bit of my time, I could spent hunting to feed myself in order to survive.
What I had to put in order to get that apple, is why I deserve to get that apple. Nature in its every part and in ways you don't understand, is competitive. Recognize it.
Are there any interviews between Bork and Bjork?
where's bjork? there's no music on this :(
@Nintendomanwill Don't feel bad about admiring Hayek's hypothesis. He was a brilliant man, with a rare ability to distill to basics very complex ideas.
I made that statement because military tech and the internet, are meaningless examples for government accomplishments, though they affect us greatly.
I bet the Mises Institute would strongly disagree with you, Austrian economics have their place in academic economics and should be followed more closely. I think it's extremely important not to lose the big picture and to dismiss the free-market as a fantasy would be a great mistake, given there are so many examples where free markets thrived.
Whatever inadequacy Bork possessed for the Supreme Court, this video does not demonstrate it. He simply poses a question: Is the trend of intellectualls towards favoring government regulation, even when economic principles counsel against it, guided by ideology?
Von Hayek's complaint about intellectuals is absolutely absurd. If I were to go to a private businessman today with a proposal that required him to take on some degree of risk, his first question would be what the tangible goal of this venture was. If I were to tell him that I cannot demonstrate by lowly logic that this proposal is conducive to a palpable good or benefit for him or for society at large, then he would reject the proposal. Sensible actions are the actions of the sane.
It's apparent this talk went straight over your head.
its all about survival of the genetic code, but is it an evolutionary trait? Is it scientifically proved? Or is culture or social norms that determine the development of this traits in any given community?? As you pointed out before with the catholicism example. And I agree with you the big question is what determines what? And another big question will be, are we able to use this grand tool we discovered (reason) to modify our own determinations as a species?
(continued)
P.S.: I'm not quite satisfied with my answer to your comment. It is hard to formulate complex ideas with proper liaisons in between them, including an abundance of examples, when I am restricted to 500 characters.
May I refer you to some literature? F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and Ludwig von Mises' "Socialism" (his successful attempt of debunking socialism)
There is also a great video series by Milton Friedman: "Freedom to choose", found here on UA-cam.
...continue n.2...
Second of all, a capitalist doesn't force anyone to do anything. He lays out choices, in what is considered both by society and by the nature of his trade, fair, and let those who want take the opportunity.
Despite that you may feel like 800 dollars is a small pay for carrying letters from door to door, cause you hate this job, in reality anyone who can walk, read and use his hands, can do it. Society doesn't need YOU to hand over the letters.
@ironhills - you're free to draw your own conclusions....
Where is the 21st century version of Hayek/Friedman? :(
Some do, some don't. But I always expect it from those who are willing to challenge philosophically other, even opposite, ideas.
The definition of tyranny I presume leaves little to no space for those in the bottom to create or accept choices other than those enforced by the ruler. Democracy on the other hand puts the majority as the ruler and leaves enough space for those unwilling to follow, to reach other places where they can be the majority.
Slavery too means that those who are used are subjected to one's will, leaving them no other option or chance to move away from it.
Is this Bork the infamous judge involved in the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 ?
I gotta agree with Bork more than Hayek on this one. It does seem the academics/intellectuals just have something against capitalism and the private sector just because of its nature.
May be because they tend to be outside of the private sector.
@akosh33 Because a lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad in many cases. Where the "intellectuals" go wrong is ignoring the corruption of principles of the people who were responsible, and assuming that that same corruption of principles wouldn't take place within government because the government has that extra measure of public accountability which a free-enterprise doesn't. We're able to not vote for someone with little cost, but we're not able to not buy essential goods or services.
Reminds me of book "Voltaire's bastards"
@randomgai1234 Yeah unfortunately they are advising presidents. Hell even Nixon had Milton Friedman advising him and still allowed the Keynesian economists to rule the roost for political expediency
@technoviking How would his disbelief in evolution effect the way he acts in office?
@koontunes101 Ok, you're right, it is possible to ensure an outcome with the "greatest good" for a GROUP of people with something in common. That's just a matter of enforcement. The real issue is it not whether or not it helps one group of people, but whether it does it at anyone's expense. Minimum wadges, for example, do benefit the citizens who have them, but MW also do a number on everyone else. The people who's labour isn't as valuable, whose businesses are understaffed, the unemployed, etc.
So you're saying that if there was no state we'd go to a society that wouldn't extol the virtues of self-interest and actively suppressing our human nature that is essentially good and altruistic and free?
...continue n.3...
Nor are the requirments for this job so specific or hard to be fulfilled, that the choices are few. Anyone can do it, and it is not as productive.
The head of the post office though, has a job that requires specific knowledge, dealing with legal representatives, dealing with goverment regulations, offices and whatnot, dealing with employees, risking investment and a ton of other shit that I will need a day to make a list for.
@tothatextent You should know that Hayek did not like doing two things. He did not like attributing bad intentions to people(at least in public), and he did not like being off the cuff & spontanous in interviews(probably because he was not very good at it). Your ''dancing around'' is just Hayek trying to relate the question back to somthing he really knows about rather then speculaton. He does this in all his interviews.
@RunLiberty Tom Knapp 2012 for President (LP), you cannot have market freedom without social freedom based on personal liberty.
Quest, I tend to agree with you. I have studied the metaphysical, which is the basis of govt paternal philosophies, and those come from environment mostly. Forming them at an early age in the sub-conscience, is a subjective epistimilogy. Hayek here doesn't get into philosophy. The Metaphysical approach is what he is directing his comments about. Not understanding the rules creates a FEELING, that what is not comprehesible, must be nonsense. That disconnect comes from misunderstanding.
@CurtHowland that and he dared to openly challenged them during his confirmation hearing. he knew he was smarter and he would let them know it, even at the expense of not getting on the Supreme Court.
Ted Kennedy was his biggest target during the hearings.
@stupidfleshmonkies Sorry, I meant to aim that at you, but I clicked the wrong reply button.
Fairness is an easily understood concept. It means preventing monopolies so that new ideas can grow and flourish, it means preventing abject squalor and hardship when it's within our means without severely harming the livelihood of another. It basically aims to keep us competitive by making sure that nothing gets too powerful or too pitiable.
Why are you changing the subject? The subject is that Capitalists own both the means of production, and what is produced.
So in fact, DBeetleeater Doug's complaint was accurate.
He lived in Austria, as far as I know...german speaking...moved to US and layed the ground for the "Austrian School of Economics"
What is Dr. Hayek saying here?
@reverenceforall their wealth.) But the state can not decide who is a charitable case and who is not. That is not the only argument against wealth distribution (it causes drastically shifted time preference and reduced self reliance and pride) The problem of economic calculation and the profit method allow resources to be allocated in the most efficient manner, something socialism can not do (because their are no prices for goods) Anyways I hope that you continue to read and grow and that
What's Bork saying? Do big companies, big manufacturers not band together and to protect their interests? Chambers of commerce and manufacturers' association aren't cases in point?
@WeekendAtBernankes There are many people living in their cars. and the police harass them for doing so. There are people living in tent cities 30 miles outside NY city. All the videos are on You Tube. What planet do you hail from if I may be so bold to ask?
Now I finally understand why the state intellectuals were so rabidly hostile to the thought of Bork on the Supreme Court.
He wasn't one of them.
The market may not be free in the true sense of the term, but the market can be made more free.
@HisokanoOkami America is not a good example of a free market at all. The government adds tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, a list of rules and regulations, every year. The financial sector is one of the most highly regulated in the world. Regulations tend to favor large corporations at the expense of their competitors, which is why large corporations are often in favor of regulation. Corporatism stems from government privilege which is antithetical to free market principles.
@CernelJoson Whether or not it closely matches your ideal of a free market notwithstanding, you must admit it is one of the--if not the--most vehemently free market developed nation on Earth. Moreover, the idea that regulations favor the large corporations necessarily is absurd. That might often be the case in America, but most nations favor small businesses, and actively work against the formation of monopolies. The free market by itself has no mechanism to defend against those.
Hayek is in the galactic history books.
@RunLiberty
really? I come to watch a video about a brilliant economist and I have to see a political ad at the top of the comments?
@reverenceforall but there wouldnt be any more homeowners or people who can afford food than there are now either.
open your ears. he is saying that they do not accept what they don't understand the mechanics of. the point is their willingness to accept unexplained phenomena not their stupidity to grasp it.
In science this is commonplace. The paths of action of many drugs is a relative mystery. Yet they are used and not rejected until fully explained.
Interventionism and the empty-promise making politicians don't create wealth. Wealth has to be accumulated, structured, and maintained. Wealth is created by those who see opportunity and take risk. Risk means the possibility of failure. The American worker earns a higher wage relative to his Indian counter-part, not because of unions and politicians, but because of the capital he has afforded to him. Unfortunately, we have been consuming our capital with inflation.
that considered trade? Because when in the Soviet Union auto parts were made in Leningrad, sent to be assembled in the Ukraine and then sold in Moscow we laughed when they said that it was trade.
Must agree. The commons? Word to the wise: discussion of class, the proletariat, or the masses tells all. Just because you hated high school and couldn't get laid doesn't mean the world needs fixing. You do. And you know it. Buck up. The prom queen of life awaits. Don't blame the system.
Capitalists don't own the means of production - AND the thing produced?
@jarden69 It's true that they are intellectuals, but they are talking about the intellectuals who want a planned economy with their plans in place, which Hayek and Bork do not.
Yeah, I forget that 30 years ago was the 80s. Either way, the cars today are vastly superior, the tvs are vastly superior, and the general standard of living is superior. When I want to know something, I go online and look it up. I have all of the world's information available to me on demand. You don't know what wealth is.
Productivity gains are the result of increased capital per worker, and technological improvement. Technology has come a long way, and so has labor productivity.
This is the thinking that is incorrect and I wanted you to say. Money is necessary as a means of survival because the human organism has evolved to use it. You are thinking of "survival" and "natural selection" as physically characteristics. The wonderful thing about humanity is that it has adapted to allow those "physically unadaptive" to survive!
@babybirdhome: A presence of regulation has been bad in many more cases. Also, I find it hard to believe the lack of regulation has been demonstrably bad, because you don't know how the regulation would have worked out if it had been there. What happened without regulation may have been bad, but what would have happened with it may have been even worse.
Also, yes, you can't not buy essential goods, but you can buy them from someone else.
@CernelJoson Evolution doesn't require faith, it just requires a whole lot of requisite knowledge. It might seem like it takes faith when you don't understand it.
Abiogenesis might require a bit of faith, though, but that's not the argument you're trying to make.
Sometimes mandatory industries, or small business need support only a State can provide. A completely free market, absent any government oversight would necessarily evolve into us obeying megacorporations rather than governments.
@CernelJoson I think you're basing that all on anecdotal evidence. Yeah, America is sort of corporatist, but that's because we're too free market, not because we're too big government. When Government and Business work together to that degree, certainly bad things can happen, which is why I'm a huge advocate of severely limiting the impact of money on elections. Using America as a bad example of big government is like using Norway as a bad example of free market policies.
I don't follow what you were trying to say here. Draw analogies between democracy and slavery and tyranny? That they're all the same and the usual line about how democracy is mob rule? So you agree with me that any kind of human organization is legitimate only insofar as it is a democratic organization?
But if you don't, you die. And slaves were traded all the time, different masters, much like an employee moving from employer to employer, often not by his own volition.
The Founders never had protectionism in mind; They were laissez-faire classical liberals. "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none"
Where is that accent coming from?
Damn I miss read the title. I thought it was bork salma hayek.
Anyway. This has started to occupy way more space than it should for the comment section.. Live like that. If it makes you happy go for it. I trust people who have a better understanding of their lives will push you away, while those of similar mind or capacity will stay along. Either way there is no fearing you, with the amount of ignorance you present. Even if people listen to what you have to say, it can be dispelled too easily. Try cooking lessons next.
No one can take you seriously when you say that American's are not wealthier today than they were 30 years ago. Today, almost every one has a television set, they have computers, cars, ect. Massive productivity gains have brought down the prices of such goods in real terms.
What you mean to say is that real wages have remained stagnant. And in this case you're correct. This is because Keynesian inflationism destroys real wages. Keynes said people were too stupid to notice; Hayek disagreed.