PDA

View Full Version : I found weird quote from Friedrich Hayek




JackieDan
06-08-2011, 12:19 PM
"A dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism."

Then he goes on saying:


My personal impression — and this is valid for South America - is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government. And during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.

Why does he prefer a liberal dictator over democratic government? What is a liberal dictator?

malkusm
06-08-2011, 12:26 PM
Hayek is referring to "classical liberalism," i.e. a laissez-faire economy and relatively small government. If you read "Road to Serfdom" you will be similarly confused at why he is contrasting "liberalism" with Hitler's dictatorial powers. Mises uses the word "liberal" in much the same way.

At one time, "liberal" actually meant free markets and civil liberties. :eek:

ETA: Imagine if Ron Paul were dictator. That's what he means when he says that it's possible for a dictator to "govern in a liberal way." And I think all of us would prefer (at least, for a short period of time) to have a dictator who governs in a liberal way as opposed to the democratic government we are subjected to presently. Note that in your second quote, he emphasizes the temporary nature of such an arrangement.

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 12:31 PM
Why does he prefer a liberal dictator over democratic government? What is a liberal dictator?

I'd prefer to live under Pinochet, who was a relatively free market guy, although he was a brutal dictator, over democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 12:43 PM
Hayek is referring to "classical liberalism," i.e. a laissez-faire economy and relatively small government. If you read "Road to Serfdom" you will be similarly confused at why he is contrasting "liberalism" with Hitler's dictatorial powers. Mises uses the word "liberal" in much the same way.

At one time, "liberal" actually meant free markets and civil liberties. :eek:

This^^ "liberal" is almost synonymous with "libertarian" in the rest of the world.

erowe1
06-08-2011, 12:44 PM
Why does he prefer a liberal dictator over democratic government? What is a liberal dictator?

I assume that he means "liberal" in the sense of respecting people's liberty, and thus keeping the scope of government relatively small.

I agree with his basic point. There's nothing about democracy that makes it automatically more conducive to liberty than dictatorship. Just ask any Iraqi Christian.

Wesker1982
06-08-2011, 12:48 PM
This^^ "liberal" is almost synonymous with "libertarian" in the rest of the world.

Even today?

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 12:50 PM
I'd prefer to live under Pinochet, who was a relatively free market guy, although he was a brutal dictator, over democratically elected Hugo Chavez.

Not me. Under a poorly run economy that still respects basic freedoms I can always "vote with me feet" and leave if things become too unbearable.

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 12:52 PM
I assume that he means "liberal" in the sense of respecting people's liberty, and thus keeping the scope of government relatively small.

I agree with his basic point. There's nothing about democracy that makes it automatically more conducive to liberty than dictatorship. Just ask any Iraqi Christian.

Good point.

dannno
06-08-2011, 12:54 PM
Not me. Under a poorly run economy that still respects basic freedoms I can always "vote with me feet" and leave if things become too unbearable.

I think the 'dictator's' main job in this instance would be to preserve economic liberty, protect private property and stop the inevitable wealth redistribution that would occur during say a communist or socialist revolution. I don't think they would stop you from leaving the country with your own property if they were a true 'liberal' dictator, it's more about what they would refuse to do, i.e. commit theft.

It would be like if our country fell apart, and there was enough of us, at least 20%, and we proclaimed Ron/Rand Paul to be our "leader" in order to pave the way for a free and prosperous future and tried to keep order for a period of time.

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 12:57 PM
I think the 'dictator's' main job in this instance would be to preserve economic liberty, protect private property and stop the inevitable wealth redistribution that would occur during say a communist or socialist revolution. I don't think they would stop you from leaving the country with your own property if they were a true 'liberal' dictator, it's more about what they would refuse to do, i.e. commit theft.

LPF made the specific reference to Pinochet. Pinochet didn't just stop people from leaving the country, he "disappeared" them. You can leave with your stuff, but you can't leave with your kid because his body will never be found. How wonderful. :rolleyes:

dannno
06-08-2011, 12:59 PM
LPF made the specific reference to Pinochet. Pinochet didn't just stop people from leaving the country, he "disappeared" them. You can leave with your stuff, but you can't leave with your kid because his body will never be found. How wonderful. :rolleyes:

Ya you're right I don't think Pinochet is a good example of a liberal 'dictator'. A liberal 'dictator' means you have to chuckle a little bit after using the word dictator, like if Ron Paul was a 'dictator'.

JackieDan
06-08-2011, 01:00 PM
I think the 'dictator's' main job in this instance would be to preserve economic liberty, protect private property and stop the inevitable wealth redistribution that would occur during say a communist or socialist revolution. I don't think they would stop you from leaving the country with your own property if they were a true 'liberal' dictator, it's more about what they would refuse to do, i.e. commit theft.

It would be like if our country fell apart, and there was enough of us, at least 20%, and we proclaimed Ron/Rand Paul to be our "leader" in order to pave the way for a free and prosperous future and tried to keep order for a period of time.


Well said.

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 01:11 PM
Not me. Under a poorly run economy that still respects basic freedoms I can always "vote with me feet" and leave if things become too unbearable.

You could also do that under Pinochet, as long as you weren't in politics.

You could have a business, a family, health services, etc. Under Chavez you just have massive poverty with the risk of your entire business being expropriated. I'm not saying either of the two situations is good, but I prefer the former.

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 01:15 PM
Ya you're right I don't think Pinochet is a good example of a liberal 'dictator'. A liberal 'dictator' means you have to chuckle a little bit after using the word dictator, like if Ron Paul was a 'dictator'.

I think if Ron Paul was appointed dictator he would immediately disband the government and quit. ;) Unfortunately what usually happens is that dictators changes (or show their true colors) after becoming dictators. The only dictator I would trust is Jesus. Which reminds me. I need to subscribe to this thread and link to it the next time an atheist libertarian attacks me for supporting a "celestial dictatorship". If Hayek was okay with a liberal I can be down with a heavenly one. ;)

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 01:18 PM
You could also do that under Pinochet, as long as you weren't and none of your family were in politics.

Fixed it for ya. ;)



You could have a business, a family, health services, etc. Under Chavez you just have massive poverty with the risk of your entire business being expropriated. I'm not saying either of the two situations is good, but I prefer the former.

You can have all that in capitalist/communist China too. Sorry but I wouldn't want to live in a country where my kid could be snatched off the street and stuffed in a van just for wearing the wrong t-shirt or saying the wrong thing. I can rebuild wealth. I can't replace my kids.

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 01:25 PM
You can have all that in capitalist/communist China too. Sorry but I wouldn't want to live in a country where my kid could be snatched off the street and stuffed in a van just for wearing the wrong t-shirt or saying the wrong thing. I can rebuild wealth. I can't replace my kids.

That also happens in the Venezuela of Chavez. The likelihood of being left alone if you mind your own business is higher under a regime like Pinochet's. From my point of view, the difference is that while in a socialist or communist democracy you can't succeed economically or criticize the government, you are much more likely to get away with doing one of the those two things under a relatively liberal dictator.


You can have all that in capitalist/communist China too.

If it wasn't for cultural differences, I'd also prefer to live in China over today's Venezuela.

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 01:45 PM
That also happens in the Venezuela of Chavez.

Not nearly as often as it happened in Pinochet's chilly.



The likelihood of being left alone if you mind your own business is higher under a regime like Pinochet's.


Not true. Political dissent is allowed in Venezuela to the point where the CIA was almost able to engineer a coup. And the "independent" media that Chavez had permitted was in on it. Pinochet never would have allowed that. And he wouldn't have just gone after those in the coup, he would have gone after their families as well.



From my point of view, the difference is that while in a socialist or communist democracy you can't succeed economically or criticize the government, you are much more likely to get away with doing one of the those two things under a relatively liberal dictator.


Chavez has allowed government critics to continue. He cracked down on some after U.S. government released information showed they had been involved in the coup against him. He still allows some critics to continue though. Pinochet didn't.



If it wasn't for cultural differences, I'd also prefer to live in China over today's Venezuela.

If you move to China be sure to know the difference between Tai Chi and Falun Gong. One is an exercise the government considers a national treasure. The other the government considers subversive and will kill you over it and harvest your organs. But you can own a prison labor factor if you play your cards right. ;)

Johncjackson
06-08-2011, 01:55 PM
Hayek is referring to "classical liberalism," i.e. a laissez-faire economy and relatively small government. If you read "Road to Serfdom" you will be similarly confused at why he is contrasting "liberalism" with Hitler's dictatorial powers. Mises uses the word "liberal" in much the same way.

At one time, "liberal" actually meant free markets and civil liberties. :eek:



FWIW, Liberalism is/was still taught this way in my political science classes at a large US University. I concentrated in political theory and classical liberalism was taught as THE liberalism, with Smith, Nozick, Rawls,etc considered the liberal schools of thought, with the only differences really being strict libertarians who only supported govt protecting rights and other more progressive liberals.

Most of those "thinkers" and advisors associated with recent administrations ( Obama, Clinton, Bush 1&2, Reagan) are put into their own non-liberal category with somewhat of a "left/right" split in some of their economic conclusions, but decidedly non-liberal in philosophy.

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 02:06 PM
Chavez has allowed government critics to continue.

Sure, but they just get assassinated by random people who don't get caught.

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 02:07 PM
FWIW, Liberalism is/was still taught this way in my political science classes at a large US University. I concentrated in political theory and classical liberalism was taught as THE liberalism, with Smith, Nozick, Rawls,etc considered the liberal schools of thought, with the only differences really being strict libertarians who only supported govt protecting rights and other more progressive liberals.

Putting Rawls and Nozick in the same category is idiotic. It's like putting Mises and Marx in the same category. Your professor is a fraud or incredibly stupid.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-08-2011, 02:11 PM
Liberal Dictator is a misnomer. Early liberal theorists were very adamant about the use of the Monarch as an architect of a liberalized environment. In other words, they believed they could surround the Monarch with liberal intellectuals, advisors, raise him from a child to be a liberal, and from there would see to the maximum liberty of his subjects and himself as chief benefactor of their energies. It simply didn't work, because absolute power absolutely corrupts, and so they abandoned it in favor of the American and French revolutions. Now, it's time for us to learn from the past and take the next leap forward for liberalism and that would be Self-Government (Stateless society).

low preference guy
06-08-2011, 02:11 PM
The likelihood of being left alone if you mind your own business is higher under a regime like Pinochet's.


Not true. Political dissent is allowed in Venezuela to the point where the CIA was almost able to engineer a coup. And the "independent" media that Chavez had permitted was in on it. Pinochet never would have allowed that. And he wouldn't have just gone after those in the coup, he would have gone after their families as well.


But all those people in Venezuela are not left alone. Their economic liberties are severely restricted. Also, I'm referring to what happens to people who mind their own business, and you give me a counterexample talking about those who participate in politics. It's not a valid argument but a change of topic.

jmdrake
06-08-2011, 02:12 PM
Sure, but they just get assassinated by random people who don't get caught.

That happens here. Only the media claims that someone commits suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head....twice. If the government offs me I want them to at least have to lie about it and it not be accepted as a fact of life like it was in Pinochet's Chile.