I am good with that. You know I am a great proponent of Locke. The philosophy is better grounded and universal when based on natural rights. You and I may be sated with that... The thing that strikes me is how well Hayek speaks to the modern reader... how his persuasive arguments are directly made in contradiction to Keynes. I would not stop there. I gather all the allies I can, advocate for Ludwig Von Mises, Adam Smith, and for contemporary economists like Sowell and Williams. For the argument to be persuasive to a wide audience even if their arguments are grounded in pragmatism as opposed to natural rights it is helpful for the cause. What I believe is the strongest basis is not universally appreciated... No matter the source or their philosophic basis if they are persuasive to others and bring about positive economic policy...

Re: Freedom for all,

It's clear that the book was written from a liberal progressive perspective and since when has accuracy been a factor in books written for the purpose of indoctrination?

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Re: Circus Guy,

You figured it out, being capable does not mean being willing to do something, especially when welfare steps in to take the pressure off the individual.

Furthermore, anyone with a lick of sense would recognize the absurdity of the concept of useful poor people for the sake of wealthy peoples success.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

MORALITY IS ARBITRARY?
Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? Our country was founded on the principle that Man owns himself. That is not arbitrary. It is a moral basis. Socialism is based on the opposite principle. Therefore is evil. One should not base their life on pragmatism. People do. That's why we keep having to fight socialism in the world.

I can't speak for all patent attorneys. But my husband would say that is both stupid and poor advise. 1. makes it harder to get a patent through, because examiners reject what they don't understand 2. more difficult to obtain a license, win an infringement suit,3. easier to invalidate
Being an engineer is one qualification for expertise in doing a search and opinion-based on the reading of claim structure. There is special skill that is developed in the writing and reading of claims based both on engineering and patent law. No one stops you for taking the risk of doing one yourself, however.

Having read a bit of Hayek, I will assert that the Wiki here is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_H...
Particularly notable quotes from Mr Hayek:
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend."
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong"

My view: Hayek was staunchly anti-Socialist. However, it is a fair assessment that he was not pro-Capitalist out of any core philosophy that lead him there, and that's why you see such surprising things come out of the mouth of a guy that despised Socialism. He's basically advocating Socialist positions here - they just weren't what the socialists of his day were agitating for.

I actually think it has the proper insight for all the sciences-it is based on reality.
Science does require a certain philosophical basis. A is A
Rand did not explore the science of physics or economics. But she did explore the philosophy of science. I think Economics falls into the science category.

I have read a fair amount of von Mises. I have also been a part of Austrian economics club.
Economic calculations are important, however, with any proof, it needs to first derive from a logical foundation.

of course it is permissible. You can sign away the rights or your property in most cases. You do it every day when you trade your property for other property.
The idea behind natural rights is that they derive from the fact that you own yourself. That any other possibility means you are a slave-that's not natural. It doesn't mean that others will respect your rights.
There is a difference between your natural rights and the exact implementation of laws to protect those rights (ie. deed)

well, you hire an expert to survey your land, you don't just start building at the edge of what you think your property line is...

in part due to the lack of moral condemnation of socialism.

It is certainly Hayek and many if not most Austrian economists. Please read D Kelley's paper on point.
Yes, however it was all based on man's inability to know enough as a central planner. He was not morally against socialism. That is important.

good points lionel

afternoon, OA. My question remains, why stop with Hayek instead of going back to Locke? The US was well set up to thrive and it did. As Lionel points out, Hayek's arguments against socialism are important but without that epistemological basis in natural rights, there is no rational basis for property rights. Rather, simply an expedient or convenient basis.

The author of this text showed clear bias. Opinion presented as fact is insidious.

Hello LionelHutz,
I agree. Experience is a great teacher, and he was trying to find the best way to be persuasive. IMHO he succeeded.
Regards,
O.A.

My limited, but semi-informed, view of Hayak is he spent a lot of time debunking Socialism and offered explanations for why it wouldn't work. When he makes an argument that Socialism won't work because of limited knowledge, I don't think he's trying to say "but if we ever get the knowledge, then by all means lets do Socialism." His argumentation isn't setup to explain why Capitalism is better philosophically. He tries to tear down Socialism on a practical basis because it's just one (of many) ways to do it, and I'm guessing he figures its the easiest to argue.