Where is the evidence that "Hayek specifically stated that he sympathized with the general aim of those who wanted to act against South Africa, but only disagreed with their methods"? Hayek stated that concern about human rights had led "to a degree of interference with the policy of other countries which, even if I sympathized with the general aim, I don't think it's in the least justified."
"You see, my problem with all this is the whole role of what I commonly call the intellectuals, which I have long ago defined as the secondhand dealers in ideas. For some reason or other, they are probably more subject to waves of fashion in ideas and more influential in the American sense than they are elsewhere. Certain main concerns can spread here with an incredible speed. Take the conception of human rights. I'm not sure whether it's an invention of the present administration or whether it's of an older date, but I suppose if you told an eighteen year old that human rights is a new discovery he wouldn't believe it. He would have thought the United States for 200 years has been committed to human rights, which of course would be absurd. The United States discovered human rights two years ago or five years ago. Suddenly it's the main object and leads to a degree of interference with the policy of other countries which, even if I sympathized with the general aim, I don't think it's in the least justified. People in South Africa have to deal with their own problems, and the idea that you can use external pressure to change people, who after all have built up a civilization of a kind, seems to me morally a very doubtful belief. But it's a dominating belief in the United States now."
Hayek devoted a large part of his life to exerting external pressure on countries (interference) to reduce trade union power - with one exception, apartheid South Africa (the quintessential trade union state). Apartheid was designed to keep non-whites out of trades, professions and the electorate. The imposition of the contrived order of the Africaans language led to the 1976 riots. For non-whites, human capital formation and wages were suppressed by the State. In contrast, when the human rights of Falkland Islanders were violated, Hayek advocated that mainland Argentina be bombed.
Hayek had a history of making what could be interpreted as racists comments: "I don't have many strong dislikes. I admit that as a teacher--I have no racial prejudices in general--but there were certain types, and conspicuous among them the Near Eastern populations, which I still dislike because they are fundamentally dishonest. And I must say dishonesty is a thing I intensely dislike. It was a type which, in my childhood in Austria, was described as Levantine, typical of the people of the eastern Mediterranean. But I encountered it later, and I have a profound dislike for the typical Indian students at the London School of Economics, which I admit are all one type--Bengali moneylender sons. They are to me a detestable type, I admit, but not with any racial feeling. I have found a little of the same amongst the Egyptians--basically a lack of honesty in them." He also appeared to be surprised when "negroes" produced quality academic work.
Depending on tribal loyalty, the Mises (1927 _Liberalism_) ("popular front"?) link to Fascism could be interpreted as being as strong or as weak as the Keynes link to totalitarianism:
"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."
RL
----- Messaggio originale -----
Da: "Doug Mackenzie" <[log in to unmask]>
A: [log in to unmask]
Inviato: Giovedì, 17 novembre 2011 16:56:54
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"
Its not a matter of Hayek's comments being nuanced. Hayek was criticizing advocacy of external pressure on countries like South Africa- even when he sympathizes with the general aim. Since Hayek specifically stated that he sympathized with the general aim of those who wanted to act against South Africa, but only disagreed with their methods, I have concluded that Robert either did not understand what Hayek said, or was trying to smear Hayek.
I thank Alan for providing this link to the interview, but I see no ethical problem with disagreeing with means towards an agreed upon end.
Robert also stated that Mises supported Fascism. Is there evidence behind this smear, or is it just another misrepresentation?
List members should be careful to verify such inflamatory and offensive claims before submitting them to this list.
Doug MacKenzie, Ph.D.
Carroll College
> From: Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Backhouse and Bateman, "Wanted: Worldly Philosophers"
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, November 17, 2011, 8:39 AM
> On 11/17/2011 8:00 AM, Robert Leeson
> wrote:
> > Hayek's 1978 defence of the "civilisation" of the
> Nazi-led
> > apartheid regime against the "fashion ... of human
> rights"
> > which the US discovered "two years ago or five years
> ago."
>
> Since it may help to have a source for Robert's quote
> fragments:
> http://www.hayek.ufm.edu/index.php?title=Bob_Chitester_part_I&p=video1&b=930&e=1037
>
> While I consider Hayek's comments to be more nuanced than
> Robert's presentation suggests, they are certainly not his
> finest hour, either analytically or ethically.
>
> Alan Isaac
>
|
