Dismantling the Foolish Framework of Right-Wing Politics.
Right-wing politics in Australia has for most of it’s life depended on the imported “philosophies”, if one can prefer THAT designation over a more accurate ; “ Opportunisms” of the deluded ideology of Rand, Hayek and Friedman.
Deluded because for all their espousing of the right of “freedom” of the individual to rise both themselves and the society they live in above the “suffocating collectivism” of the “nanny state”. Ironically, all the while sheltering under the umbrella of that same “nanny state social contract” that gives them freedom , peace and stable institutions to collect their “thoughts’ to write and publish their diatribes against the very comforts afforded to them by the state.
For any civilization to grow and flourish, it has to have an agreed social philosophy. That philosophy can vary, have it’s goals as different and conduct it’s cultural respects at a changed tempo than it’s neighbours. BUT..the ONE common foundation in EVERY successful, LONG LASTING society is it’s adherence to the collective concern of each and every one of it’s citizens. NOT a dividing and polarizing of different sections of that society , for the basic truth of ALL societies is : “A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND”. That must stand as an inherent truth, demonstrated throughout history as rock solid 24 carat gold !
Yet…The Right-wing of politics STILL maintains that one section of society can be held up as a standard for aspiration toward, all the while throwing barricades against those who try to even ascend the ladder of medium income and or social stability. The Right-wing of politics holds such deluded spielers as Ayn Rand, Theodor Hayek and Milton Friedman as philosophical examples to emulate and proselytize.
“First to the “Elder Statesman” ; Rand.
“ Ayn Rand asserted that capitalism – which she defined as the complete separation of economics from the activities of the state – was the only social system compatible with freedom. Capitalism, she explained, recognizes and defends reason as man’s sole means of survival. In a capitalist society, goods and services are distributed by consensual trade, not by physical coercion. Being a system in which coercive physical force is used only to defend each person’s life, liberty and property, capitalism is the only system compatible with human life.” (copied and pasted from a site sympathetic to Rand.)
Until an opposition puts a “contract” out on you!..surely ; capitalism at it’s zenith!
The underpinning puerile presumption of this fools errand is that one has all the time, means and splendid isolation from personal injury to go about one’s pursuit of capital accumulation. As if history is not rife with accounts of jealousy, robbery, force of arms and plain mischief that interferes with, corrupts, shifts goal posts and just plain murders with impunity one’s envied competition…ALL in the name of greed!
Reason being HER explanation of “as man’s sole means of survival” yet she failed to reason that her “iron-will” of the objectivism of the individual over the social contract that one makes with one’s neighbours to facilitate the best chances of mutual protection in times of duress led this gormless dupe to have to accept social welfare in her frail old age under her partner’s name and seek medical assistance to her life’s end. As a condemnation of her philosophy, there can be no other adjective best suited than : FOOL!
“Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. In his book, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, McConnell basically portrays Rand as first standing on principle, but then being mugged by reality. Stephens points to this exchange between McConnell and Pryor.
“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
Rand had paid into the system, so why not take the benefits? It’s true, but according to Stephens, some of Rand’s fellow travelers remained true to their principles.
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.
Paterson would end up dying a pauper. Rand went a different way.”
“ Justice as Impartiality, Politics As Entrepreneurship Without Restraint
Hayek was a consequentialist of sorts, as was Adam Smith, and yet Hayek’s defense of economic freedom, like Smith’s, hints at a contractarian or deontological (and also, in Smith’s case, virtue-theoretic) moral sensibility that regards the separateness of persons as morally fundamental. Thus, for example, Hayek says, “the test of the justice of a rule is usually (since Kant) described as that of its universalizability” (Hayek 1969, 168). As John Gray sees it, Hayek commended the laws of justice “as being the indispensable condition for the promotion of the general welfare” but Hayek held, at the same time, that “an impartial concern for the general welfare is itself one of the demands of universalizability” (Gray 1984, 65).
In service of the overall project of fostering the general welfare, the point of law and legislation is to craft a framework such that a market order consists of a history of pareto-improving trades. A primary role of law and (when necessary) legislation is to narrow people’s options so as to limit opportunities to get rich at other people’s expense. So long as the rule of law can internalize external cost and thereby steer innovation in mutually beneficial rather than parasitic directions, an evolving order will be an order of rising prosperity.
By contrast, in a planned order, even astute and conscientious decisions by men of system are damaging in a particular way. Namely, as they become micro-managers, they become players rather than umpires. If bureaucrats start playing the game—responding to ephemeral events with centralized fine tuning—then even if they play as cleverly as bureaucrats could possibly play, the fact remains that in consequence, the dispersed and tacit knowledge of ordinary buyers and sellers ends up on the sidelines watching. People who would have been job creators become mere spectators, shackled by uncertainty, waiting to see what the plan is going to be. Until they know the plan, they have no way of knowing, or even intelligently guessing, something as simple as whether their staff is too small or too large.”…(Again ; copy and paste from a website).
Aside from the convoluted language waffle, the glaring fault-line in his reasoning is the same as Rand’s ..ie; that the main “players” of the economic systems should be allowed all the time and freedom of market manipulative movement in the world to use and abuse the collective peoples to forward their enriching agendas THAT , we are supposed to believe will be for the better of all as those moguls throw their accumulated largesse about to employ the masses and do them a favour!
The trickle-down effect.
FUUUCK OFF!! Dickhead!..Double dickhead!!…Hayek may have had all the right academic ticks after his name..ALL the jargon language at his fingertips, but as far as a realistic innovator of life-choices for the great majority goes…in straight forward language ; he was a fuckwit!..NO..no excuses, he promoted his bent economics based on a personal delusion that what could be applied to one as an example could be applied to the many..any trainer of sport-speople could’ve set him right on that simplistic presumption..and to believe that once a person gained great wealth (by what means HAS to be overlooked!) , the honourable intent was to distribute it as beneficial employment amongst his fellow citizens with neither regulation nor interference…
Just like Alan Bond…or the owner of the 7 Eleven brand or that behemoth of universal goodwill and kindness ; Rupert Murdoch.
Get fucked Hayek!…One famous ruler who dealt with such a purveyor of those philosophies was Mithradates..: “Aquillius was eventually executed by Mithradates by having molten gold poured down his throat.“
As a tradesman, I cannot BELIEVE that anyone could take such philosophic reasoning seriously…There are procedures inherent in EVERY structure of life, be they physical spiritual or economic that DEMAND solid foundations..the foundations that Hayek has constructed his theories upon are of clay.
Another absolute fool!
Speaking of such ;
“Writing in the early 1960s, Friedman accurately described the danger of collectivism. In 1962, he published Capitalism and Freedom, ultimately his most famous book, partly as a response to the growing scope of the U.S. federal government under Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy. Here is how he responded to the rhetoric of Kennedy’s inaugural address:
“The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him, nor what he for his country. He will ask rather “What can I and my compatriots do through government” to help us discharge our individual responsibilities to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: “How can we keep the government from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?” Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is concentration of power.”
Friedman’s greatest legacy may be his demonstration that good economic policy strengthens democracy and, thereby, freedom. For instance, a monetary policy that creates inflationary pressure and high interest rates can lead to the breakdown of democracy, as factions battle for government relief.
Friedman sensibly argued that economic policy should create a level playing field. In the area of monetary management, the Federal Reserve should attempt to maintain a stable price level, rather than fine-tune the economy to achieve certain output and employment results.
Friedman’s work was heretical, and not just among economists. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the Great Depression was too recent, and fear of a recurrence quite real. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a popular hero because his interventionist New Deal was believed to have pulled America out of the hopeless economic mire created by his predecessor, the laissez-faire Herbert Hoover. Interventionist economics-popularized by the New Deal and formalized by economists like John Maynard Keynes-was the only game in town. Yet Friedman had an edge over his opponents-university professors, the mainstream media, both superpowers, and most of the rest of the world-because in the end, Friedman was right.
Friedman’s bold prediction that monetary policy would become the dominant economic tool of the modern age proved prescient. Today, few, if any, government officials have more economic influence than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The cult of Alan Greenspan that grew over the last 20 years owes more to Milton Friedman than it does-with all due respect-to Alan Greenspan. And modern U.S. economic policy, despite all the predictions of the 1950s, is based on limited government interference, monetarism, and the free market-Friedman’s then-heretical ideas.” (copy and paste from a web site).
Gawd ‘elp us!
I don’t think I need say more than three little words to describe how Friedman got it so bloody wrong..: “Global Financial Crisis”. And even Alan Greenspan has since apologized for that little “oversight” of Right-wing economics. Of course, those in the LNP. HAVE to believe that it never really happened, because to do so would negate the entire frame work of the above Philosophies completely.
Capitalism does not work!
So they go into denial…denial that a relationship has to be framed to allow the individual entrepreneur to operate in a safe , secure environment, with the free use of a sovereign currency whose value is agreed upon by collective negotiation in a social contact with the people, the financial institutions, the nation’s collective productive base and a global assessment ..Last and certainly not least :
The universal acceptance that despite an allotted freedom for the individual to operate and use their creative capabilities to enrich themselves above their neighbour’s station.. They will respect that their citizen brethren have given them both space and security to achieve their status without violent interference to either their wealth or person.
The right of the individual IS paramount, but only WITHIN a sphere of collective , mutual responsibility to the majority.
We all “owe” to each other.