/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17848143]

The work of Friedrich Hayek is probably the closest the social sciences have ever gotten to being a pure, theoretical science in my opinion.
His conception of dispersed knowledge and spontaneous order really clarify all manner of social (and even nonsocial) order and show the inherent difficulty of central-planning.
It was my interest in decentralization which first made me aware of his work; I wholeheartedly endorse it and believe that more people should read his work.
>How do I into Hayek?
I'd say start with his article, The Use of Knowledge in Society:
>https://www.kysq.org/docs/Hayek_45.pdf
It presents a lot of the ideas I was talking about really well and it's not too long.
Also not long is his book, The Denationalization of Money:
>https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/denationalisation.pdf
This is more on the economics and monetary theory side but it's a hell-of-a-good read too.
I reckon there's a lot in this book that's still waiting to be realized but the recent and ongoing crypto-revolution is definitely a great step in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.17848162]

Hayek was a pseud and contop

https://youtu.be/ymQoIt5k2AI

[Anonymous No.17848231]

>>17848162
Fuck off Hoppe fag, we are talking about an economist and philosopher whose body of work is actually relevant and objectively good.

[Anonymous No.17848427]

>>17848162
Christ, I swear AnCaps are half-retarded...
This thread was made to discuss Hayek's theoretical ideas (i.e. spontaneous order, dispersed knowledge, the socialist calculation problem, price signals, etc. and their applications).
I watched a couple minutes from this video and swear I read this video, like in a paper or something, some years ago...weird.
He honestly makes (autistic) midwit-tier arguments, lol.
>>17848231
kek

[Anonymous No.17848444]

>>17848427
none of those are Hayeks ideas. They had all been made by someone else prior.

[Anonymous No.17848488]

>>17848444
True, Hayek didn't wholly originate all of these ideas (like the Soc Calc problem) but he came up with completely original conceptions of these ideas and synthesized them into a coherent theory.
His book, the sensory order, is an excellent example of this (I've just started it but it seems like completely original work).

[Anonymous No.17848703]

>The Satoshi Nakamoto Institute
kek, didn't Krugman write an article about how he thought bitcoin was evil because it had "Libertarian undercurrents that he didn't like" or some shit?
Could you imagine the shock from no-coiners and Keynesians when it's the legacy of Hayek's ideas that ultimately win out through crypto?
Until then, I guess we'll just have to wait and see (and profit off of) where this goes.

[Anonymous No.17848814]

bump

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17848847]

>economics

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.17848859]

>>17848847
kek

[Anonymous No.17848874]

>>17848143
>The work of Friedrich Hayek is probably the closest the social sciences have ever gotten to being a pure, theoretical science in my opinion.
You mean pure rationalist philosophy liberated from all empirical concerns. Most supply side economics is anything but scientific.

[Anonymous No.17848891]

>>17848162
Go stick a neofeudal dick up your ass, Hans

[Anonymous No.17849335]

>>17848143
The Road to Serfdom really made it clear why centrally administered economies can't work. I appreciate that.

[Anonymous No.17849364]

>>17848143
>The work of Friedrich Hayek is probably the closest the social sciences have ever gotten to being a pure, theoretical science in my opinion
Not a good thing.

[Anonymous No.17850350]

more market world more gooder

[Anonymous No.17850482]

>>17848143
>being a pure, theoretical science in my opinion
I wouldn't call that a boon.

[Anonymous No.17850489]

>>17850482
And I'm very pro-market btw

Have a binance tab open while writing this

[Anonymous No.17850492]

>>17848427
>>17848231
>>17848891
YWNBAW

[Anonymous No.17850557]

>>17848847
kek
>>17849364
It is, it means there's a framework within which social change and self order can be intelligible at all.
>>17848874
Building off of my last point, Hayek, who was surrounded by Biologist growing up and studied the subject himself, was the one of the only economist who cared about giving the generation of social order and the mechanics thereof, a theoretical grounding (another one is Schumpeter).
I think we've seen a lot of his ideas on how dispersed information can generate complexes applied nowadays through the internet (e.g. cryptocurrencies of course but another one some people might not know about is the design of Wikipedia. Co-founder Jimmy Wales' stated the design of Wikipedia was partially based on Hayek's ideas on dispersed Knowledge.)
It's a philosophy that's really growing in relevance and it's been interesting to see it do that over the years.

[Anonymous No.17850596]

>>17850492
Hoppe and (((Rothbard))) are retarded.
The only arnarchist-esque guy I can respect is Nozick (also a Jew but I'm not going to do the triple parenthesis thing on him because he's a chad) and his minarchism.

[Anonymous No.17850603]

>>17850596
Rothbard's book about the fed is very good for getting normies to consider the question. much more likely to read a lolbertarian than the type of people that usually discuss that subject

[Anonymous No.17850604]

>>17848143
> the closest the social sciences have ever gotten to being a pure, theoretical science
What do you even mean by that? If by "theoretical science" you mean philosophy than I guess I understand what you're saying but science in some way has to be falsifiable. Most noting Hayek is getting at is really "scientific". As systems mature it seems more centralization occurs... things might start off decentralized but more centralization happens. The internet in the early days was heavily decentralized but has become more dependent upon a smaller amount of platforms and moderators. Also the internet in the early days looked to me like information didn't need to be priced and could freely be shared, I don't know if that was an anomaly or not.

Also people buy cryptocurrencies for capital gains against national currencies and not much to use as money... when Hayek thought about denationalizing money he was surely thinking more about 19th century wildcat banking in America than what modern crypto markets are.


>>17848703
>Could you imagine the shock from no-coiners and Keynesians when it's the legacy of Hayek's ideas that ultimately win out through crypto?
Except that's looking more and more unlikely. In 2011 you might of made a better case than today. You can go back and read fear mongering articles from a decade ago predicting hyperinflation because of large public deficits and QE, if you were naïve you might have fallen for it... all the same arguments are being reused today to argue for the same thing. People were saying crypto would replace the dollar and now people are saying it's going to replace gold (which no one uses as money).

[Anonymous No.17850626]

>>17850604
Do you have anything besides strawmen and bad history of the internet?

[Anonymous No.17850701]

>>17850626
Proponents of decentralization tend to be political ideologues, consumers generally just want what works and is cheap. Civil libertarians want stuff like having their identity totally secure which most people don't worry about and greenies want to subsidize decentralized solar panels instead of letting the superior centralized nuclear solutions win, etc, etc. I don't think if you let market forces work things out you'll get the sort of system you probably want.

[Anonymous No.17850730]

>>17850603
I think Rothbard's academic and historical work is pretty good but his philolsophy is pretty shit in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.17850765]

>bro the order is like random and shit
>bro only individual action is cool
>bro don't try to enact YOUR will on that order

[Anonymous No.17850820]

>>17850765
>>bro the order is like random and shit
Random is the not the right word at all, maybe you mean to say chaotic? specifially the type of chaos that gives way to order. I wouldn't call that random.
>>bro only individual action is cool
He doesn't say this. He isn't against collectives, he just understands that a collective is just a collection of individuals. Furthermore, he understands that the decisions of an individual naturally work in favor of the collective, of which is a member of, precisely because he is a member of that collective and relies on it many senses.
>>bro don't try to enact YOUR will on that order
Yeah, this is sort of accurate.
Hayek wasn't an Anarchist (which is why that one Hoppefag in this thread is seething at him) and he talked about the need for some government and a basic income and stuff like that but his vision was basically a system where there are basic rules that everyone follows (with no bias for any one person) and people can do whatever they want without having to worry about central planners and "social justice".

[Anonymous No.17850853]

>>17850557
>>17850820
Good posts. I lament the absence of Hayek from even the Austrian centers. Libertarians only ever mention him in reference to his Nobel Prize because his authority lends credence to their views. Hayek himself as much as he abhorred the label was kind of a Burkean conservative and his critique of socialism is distinctively Burkean in spirit as opposed to Mises' purely praxeological account

[Anonymous No.17850934]

>>17848162
>sure mister raving lunatic, I'll trust on your take
>friedman and hayek were SOCIALISTS!
is this why he never gets mentioned around libtard circles?

[Anonymous No.17851627]

Serious question,
is a Hoppe a pseud or is he based?

[Anonymous No.17851645]

>>17851627
>satanic verses
Utterly Based

[Anonymous No.17851668]

>>17851627
both

[Anonymous No.17852440]

>>17851627
He single handedly cured libertarianism out of leftist, randian and friedmanite degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.17852529]

>>17850853
>Libertarians only ever mention him in reference to his Nobel Prize because his authority lends credence to their views.
This is, unfortunately, very true.
From what I can gather, I believe the problem is that Hayek was too original a thinker and not "orthodox" enough for the Austrians and therefore "not really a libertarian".
He agreed with and was very good friends with von Mises but couldn't swallow his sort of weird praxeological reasoning and looked for a different, and in my opinion, better and more logical approach.
It was the clear brilliance of his work that attracted attention from even the mainstream to him (as well as his public spars with his much more influential friend Keynes) but in the end he was too mainstream for the Austrians and too Austrian for the mainstream.
It didn't help that, despite being good friends with fellow Nobel Laureate Economists Milton Friedman, he largely rejected (even Milton Friedman's brand of) macro-economics and it's that branch (macro-econ.) which pretty much dominates the field of economics today.

[Anonymous No.17852612]

>>17850482
>>17850489
I don't see how not, see >>17850557

[Anonymous No.17852867]

>>17852612
>>17850557
I want theoretical conjuctures to be backed by historical analysis.

I agree with Hayek's (and Schumpter's) conclusions in many ways, but I took a slightly different path there.

[Anonymous No.17852973]

>>17850820
>Had it not been for the laws of this collection of individuals, I would have slaughtered you.

[Anonymous No.17853062]

>lolbertarian
>insightful
Pick only one

[Anonymous No.17854133]

>>17852973
Kek
>>17853062
Seethe

[Anonymous No.17854161]

>>17848231
>economist
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.17854284]

>>17854161
Yes retard, you can be both; For fuck sake, Aristotle was both.

[Anonymous No.17855498]

>>17848143
You're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.17855812]

>>17855498
Wow...just wow...um...yikes!
Seriously, who hurt you?
Maybe just try using your words next time sweety?
I'm having a hard time believing you even read despite the fact that you somehow ended up posting to the literature board.
I literally can't even right now...

[Anonymous No.17855820]

Positivism is for brainlets

[Anonymous No.17855903]

>>17855820
Hayek wasn't really a positivist though.
Where are you getting this from?

[Anonymous No.17856231]

>>17852440
the fact he can just freely walk around without constant fear of violence is a testimony how twisted and weak our society is

[Anonymous No.17856559]

>>17848143
You have read his greatest book, haven't you /lit/?

[Anonymous No.17857554]

>>17851627
>hoppe
>pseud

he's the only intellectual alive.

[Anonymous No.17857559]

>Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are widely considered the most eminent classical liberal thinkers of this century. They are also the two best known Austrian economists. They were great scholars and great men. I was lucky to have them both as my teachers.… Yet it is clear that the world treats them very differently. Mises was denied the Nobel Prize for economics, which Hayek won the year after Mises's death. Hayek is occasionally anthologized and read in college courses, when a spokesman for free enterprise absolutely cannot be avoided; Mises is virtually unknown in American academia. Even among organizations that support the free market in a general way, it is Hayek who is honored and invoked, while Mises is ignored or pushed into the background.

[Anonymous No.17857594]

>>17856559
Dude, I've only just started reading this.
Do you think that this has applications in AI?
Not like that's the only reason to read this book, it's plenty interesting on it's own, but I feel like there are things I might be able to adapt from this Essay.

[Anonymous No.17857803]

>>17857559
That's because von Mises relied on praxeology and shit for a lot of his arguments.
There is no doubt that he was an intellectual with a lot of things to say (his little brother Richard was an actual genius who, with apologies to the field of Economics, contributed actual scientific knowledge to humanity so an intellectual spirit must have run in his family) but there was something unsatisfying with his explanations.
I think Hayek didn't suffer from this problem, I talk about this more here >>17852529

[Anonymous No.17857925]

>>17857803
>That's because von Mises relied on praxeology and shit for a lot of his arguments.

and how is this a problem?

[Anonymous No.17857930]

hoppe tore hayek a new asshole and no has refuted him

https://mises.org/library/why-mises-and-not-hayek

>Hayek is actually a moderate social democrat, and since we live in the age of social democracy, this makes him a "respectable" and "responsible" scholar. Hayek, as you may recall, dedicated his Road to Serfdom to "the socialists in all parties." And the socialists in all parties now pay him back in using Hayek to present themselves as "liberals."

>Now to the proof, and I rely for this mostly on the Constitution of Liberty, and his three volume Law, Legislation, and Liberty which are generally regarded as Hayek's most important contributions to the field of political theory.

>According to Hayek, government is "necessary" to fulfill the following tasks: not merely for "law enforcement" and "defense against external enemies" but "in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, by the market." (Because at all times an infinite number of goods and services exist that the market does not provide, Hayek hands government a blank check.)

[Anonymous No.17857941]

>>17848231
>No no you can't just mention the name of an individual who contradicts my every opinion and to whom I can offer not a single refutation!

[Anonymous No.17857973]

>>17848162
>>17848231
>>17848143
>>17848427
>retards calling out other retards
Hayek was a midwit

[Anonymous No.17857979]

>>17857973
Not in the least, but go ahead, explain why you think he was.

[Anonymous No.17858071]

>>17857979
it has been fully explained my the most competent person capable of doing so here >>17848162
and here >>17857930

If you have any actual arguments/refutations, we're all very interested

[Anonymous No.17858223]

>>17857941
Not him but with these sort of things it's always hard to satisfactorily "refute" someone's point simply because the world views in question are so diametrically opposed.
I'm not an anarchist and it's hard to distill every single reason for why that is into a concise format and then use it to "refute" someone with.
Reading this article though https://cdn.mises.org/rae7_1_3_3.pdf Hoppe makes a number of disingenuous statements such as this
>he following essay does not consider Hayek's achievements as an economist. As regards these, Hayek deserves great praise. But Hayek's economics is largely the one he adopted from his teacher and mentor Ludwig von Mises and thus is not original with him.
Hayek's work cannot seriously be understood as just a continuation of or adoption of von Mises' work, this is ridiculous. His is largely orginal to him and his way of thinking.
>In the Constitution of Liberty Hayek wanted government to provide further for "monetary stability" (while he later on preferred a bizarre scheme for monetary denationalization);
Hayek's goal was very clear, he wanted a good and stable money. His later views may have seemed bizarre to other economist (including the economist of today who are still unable to square the rise of crypto and simply don't get it) but they too were motivated by that same goal. He applied his reasoning on market competition to our every currency. A vision where we allow our money to evolve like all our other technologies.
Hoppe's first thesis does make sense in a purely logical way but he has the benefit of believing in Anarchy which Hayek does not enjoy. Because Hoppe is so radically removed from Hayek's position he gets to put his ideas alongside Hayek and paint him as a socialist. I shouldn't have to tell you that Hayek is not a fucking socialist but here I am.
Hayek's view is a lot more nuanced (which Hoppe, in a maybe a completely disingenuous but perhaps sincere but autistic way, get's to portray as muddled or self-contradictory).
There are a lot of good reasons to not be an anarchist but government necessarily implies coercion so Hayek defines how society can be ordered to keep Government but minimize coersion. Hoppe rejects even the Nightwatchman state and sees no need for national defense whatsoever; this is a philosophy that is completely removed from reality and far and above is located in the realm of autism.
This comment is getting long but I'll end and say his second thesis is a complete conservative autism where Hoppe just attacks Hayek's conception of societal evolution.

[Anonymous No.17858252]

>>17857979
Because I read his retarded Road to Serfdom book and I have a brain unlike everyone else ITT

[Anonymous No.17858344]

>>17858223
To clarify, my whole point about Hoppe's confusion over Hayek's ideas on the denationalization of money is this:
If Hoppe really does believe that Hayek's economics deserves great praise then why should his denationalization scheme seem bizzare to him?
And why should his Hayek's views on societal change seem like mysticism to him? I quote:
>Second-in an even more dramatic fashion-Hayek's anti-rationalism is expressed in his "theory of social evolution," where purposeful action and self-interest, trial, error and learning, force and freedom as well as state and market (society) have been systematically eliminated as explanatory factors of social change and replaced with an obscure "spontaneity" and a collectivistic-holistic-organizistic principle of "cultural group selection." (Hayek's citation of Carl Menger as precursor of his own theory is false. Menger would have ridiculed Hayek's theory of evolution as mysticism. Menger's successor is not Hayek, but Ludwig von Mises and his "social rationalism."
Hayek's own views on money and societal change are deeply connected to and influenced by the ideas he relies on in his economics (i.e. price signals, dispersed knowledge, etc.). It seems strange that Hoppe should call his economics redundent to von Mises (and therefore to him admirable and largely correct) but then seemingly rebuke the very foundational principles of Hayek's economics.

[Anonymous No.17858349]

>>17858223
>Hayek's goal was very clear, he wanted a good and stable money. His later views may have seemed bizarre to other economist (including the economist of today who are still unable to square the rise of crypto and simply don't get it) but they too were motivated by that same goal. He applied his reasoning on market competition to our every currency. A vision where we allow our money to evolve like all our other technologies.

not going to address the rest of your post as i have to go to bed soon but i wanted to touch on this

what on earth is hayek actually talking about? menger and mises have already solved 'money'. money originates as a commodity in the free market as a means to facilitate indirect exchange. the more 'marketable' a good is both in the short term and long term the better it can act as both a medium of exchange and 'store of value', ie the commodity can be expected to have demand in the future and thus retain its purchasing power. menger, mises, rothbard (and anyone with eyes) observed gold and silver have largely performed this function throughout history and continue to do so. The only thing 'money' needs to be stable is a free market. Once again, pseudo Hayek missing the basic fundamentals

this bullshit reads like something from /biz/ where literal retard ponzi scheme investors are desperately trying to rationalise their gambling addictions on worthless digital tokens

[Anonymous No.17858357]

>>17858223
>Hayek's work cannot seriously be understood as just a continuation of or adoption of von Mises' work, this is ridiculous. His is largely orginal to him and his way of thinking.
This. As a matter of fact libertarianism and praxeological autismo entered Austrian school very late on. You won't find it in Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Wieser. Hayek was influenced more by the first generation of Austrian economists than by Mises

[Anonymous No.17858429]

>>17858349
>what on earth is hayek actually talking about?
Nigga, stop calling Hayek a pseud if you haven't even read his work.
Read the denationalization of money and then you can say whatever the fuck you want about him (I'm non-coercively revoking your freeze peach kek).
Until then watch this video. There's no reason for me to summarize him when you can here the man in his very on words:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU
>not going to address the rest of your post as i have to go to bed soon but i wanted to touch on this
Understandable, I've been there a lot unfortunately and I don't especially like going to sleep while in the middle of an argument. Good night anon :)

[Anonymous No.17858434]

>>17848143
>The work of Friedrich Hayek is probably the closest the social sciences have ever gotten to being a pure
Checked and based

>>17848231
cuck hands typed this post

[Anonymous No.17858695]

Nice thread.

[Anonymous No.17859711]

>>17858695
cute