[lbo-talk] Hayek is _Ours_) (Was Re: Fitch and Brenner)

[Eubulides]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:30 PM, andie nachgeborenen
<andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

=======================

A few years back, Rethinking Marxism had a really interesting set of
essays on the possibilities of a post Hayekian political economy that
took FH's approach to the knowledge problem pretty damned seriously.
The main essayist was Ted Burzcak with contributions by David
Prychitko and Peter Boettke and some other folks. Iirc no one
problematized the self-ownership issue as it relates to the problem of
the internal govenance structures of firms and the abolition of
exploitation; s-o was pretty much assumed by all the parties to the
discussion. Burczak polished the arguments and published them in book
form:

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=93585

Problem is, Hayek, like KM, is an import and while USer's like
imported electronics and fancy cars they're pretty incurable jingoists
in matters of political econ. theories, the current reappropriation of
Keynes notwithstanding....

Ian