Gary is right about the extreme nationalistic/militaristic nature of the Axis powers, this does set FDR apart from Hitler and Mussolini, but not quite so far from Bismark. Here we get to the real issue- how did Bismark's Germany end up as Hitler's Germany? Was it a historical accident or was Bismark's state a start down the "Road to Serfdom"?

Hayek detailed forces that move a social welfare state towards tyranny, nationalism being at or near the top of the list. What forces act in the opposite direction? And there is a nationalistic tendency in the US welfare state, and policy generally- how much was spent on the War on relative poverty in America, versus aid to truly poor people in places like Haiti? What about immigration and trade policy- aimed at maintaining US wages against competiting foreigners? 

Here is my question for Gary: how can you either break nationalist feelings so as to allow wealthy nations to really help the poor of the world (assuming that transfers work), or how can you avoid militarism in a world where each nation tries to use scarce resources better its own people at the expense of others? Option #1 (World Socialism) seems as out of reach now as it was when Hayek wrote the RTS in 1943. Option #2 (each nation with its own citizen's welfare as the primary goal) seems impossible. Without a resonable answer I can't discount the danger of a welfare state gradually turning bad.


D.W. MacKenzie, Ph.D.
Carroll College, Helena MT



--- On Fri, 7/20/12, Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Alan G Isaac <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] allusion to Pareto
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, July 20, 2012, 4:08 PM
> On 7/20/2012 10:53 AM, Samuel Bostaph
> wrote:
> > Well, every fascist leader has personal goals.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's a syllogism!
> 
> Axiom: Every person has personal goals.
> Def: Every leader is a person.
> Def: Every fascist leader is a leader.
> Conclusion: Every fascist leader has personal goals.
> 
> But as Gary points out, however, it is useful to consider
> commonalities in those goals.  I take it that a reason
> to do so is to consider the adequacy of definitions
> we introduce to categorize historical ideologies.
> 
> So starting with the first item on my posted list, we might
> ask whether Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco shared anything
> in
> their approaches the role of free trade unions.  If
> so,
> we can ask whether we can we find a contrast
> with the approach to labor unions by the coeval progressive
> left
> (as represented, say, by the Political Quarterly).
> Or taking the last item on my list, we might ask about
> anti-semitism.
> Or taking an item not on my list, we might ask about
> democracy. Etc.
> 
> None of this is meant to discard the susceptibility of
> Progressive
> Era economists in the US to the eugenics fad of the the
> early 20th century.
> Naturally. But even Thomas Leonard, who stands all too ready
> to call
> "progressive" anyone who advocated active policy during the
> Progressive Era,
> admits that this susceptibility was not a criterion for
> being "progressive".
> 
> Alan Isaac
>