>
> Please read Hayek (well worth while), not in the same boat, probably not
> even on the same planet, at Friedman. No maths. No equilibrium. Despite some
> table poundung, no opposition to social democracy or planning where it would
> work -- just generaly thought it wouldn't. Question came up at a seminar I'm
> participating in whether Hayek would really draw the line, or could, given
> his premises, at objecting to anything short of total central planning. It's
> not evident that he could.
>
> A real libertarian, Richard Epstein, annoyed me by stealing my title and
> idea for a piece, "Hayekian Socialism," arguing that not only is Hayek no
> libertarian, he's not even inconsistent with socialism -- something I've
> argued for years. Market socialism. Not heavily market socialism, market
> socialism with lots of planning.
>
> Friedman, despite an occasional good idea (guaranteed annual income) is an
> enemy. Methodologically, a disaster. Hayek, malgre lui, is not. We can coopt
> him. Impress him. He wouldn't like it; he was happier at the U of C or
> chatting with Mises, but he's really one of ours, intellectually if not
> spiritually.
>
> Not that he didn't have his share of silly ideas (who, except me, does
> not?) -- in Hayek's case, outside some highly technical points about finance
> that aren't that important, it was worship of common law lawmaking and
> contempt for legislation and constitutionalism. But I think we should claim
> him. Also Schumpeter, a relation. (All those Austrians were related.) Smith
> too, btw, Chomsky has made an effective case for that. Let the other hide
> have the math-mad loonies. We'll take the guys with good ideas and a moral
> sense.
>
> Mises, on the other hand, despite some good ideas, was a creep.
>
>
Another good read is Foucault's late lecture series on "Biopower". He shows how many of the schools of thought which came out of the German/Austrian emigres during WW2 were geared toward anti-statism. He includes both the Austrian school and the Frankfurt School in the same context. Its fascinating to see how their ideas essentially ran parrallel to each other; which leads me to the conclusion that the Austrian school's economic framework was essentially radically individual in its essence. It was the targets they chose that were the problem.