Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon Dec 11 16:41:25 2006 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
--- Andrew Farrant <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The person Doug argued with may have had a point (if
> they did a stack more work)
No. The idea of any step towards intervention
producing instantanous tyrany is not in the RTS. Hayek
argued that comprehensive planning and democracy were
incompatible, but it could take a few generations for
democratic freedoms to be eliminated entirely. THat's
his main claim.
> The cartoon version of RTS (especially page 10) is a
> pretty accurate (albeit rough n' ready) rendition of
> Hayek's logic in RTS:
> A rather more nuanced argument can be found in:
> "When 'socialism' fails, then what?" (Levy, Peart,
> Farrant). European Journal of Political Economy. 24
> (1) 2005: 1064-1068.
Well, Andrew already knows that I have a paper in the
works that shows how the RTS fits in with the rest of
Hayek's system (and that Hayek is right). I can't
direct anyone to this paper because it is not an
official working paper anywhere just yet. But the real
point of this thread though is not about the RTS
itself. That was just an example.
The real point of this thread is that criticism
requires a reasonable degree of understanding. Since
Andrew and I have both studied the RTS carefully we
can get in a real discussion. Others who attack
anyone's work without really knowing it just make alot
of noise. Uninformed opinions are worthless. Right?
> Was the argument that so upset Doug made in a talk
> or in comments?
In the talk, not the comments.
Doug Mackenzie
|
|
|