catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

A quick tour around Ozblogistan

with one comment

I was going to correct some misconceptions that were expressed by Kevin Rudd in his attempt to be a major Labor intellectual but Don Arthur has beaten me to it.

However, I must strongly disagree with Don’s conclusion that “apart from the threat of chaos and starvation, Hayek has no real reason for favouring classical liberalism over social democracy. In fact, he is unable to mount an argument in favour of modern civilization over the kind of pre-modern hunter gather life advocated by the most extreme environmentalists. For Hayek, there is no reason to prefer one way of life to another. ”

Don’s conclusion is based on one book – The Fatal Conceit – which Hayek dictated on his sick bed and which was mostly ghost written by WW Bartley. On the other hand, whole libraries of books have been written setting out the case for liberalism inspired by Hayek’s ideas. All the justification is there spread across all of Hayek’s work but particularly The Constitution of Liberty and Individualism and Economic Order. But aside from that, ‘Is Don, is good’.

Steve Edney reclaims some lefty cred with a piece making the case for public health.

Melaleuca has a plan to save the ABC.

Damien Eldridge sets out a framework for determinating when discrimination against blood donors on the basis of sexuality is justified.

Robert Merkel discusses a plan for a cheaper Mars mission.

Graeme Bird puts on his defence strategist hat to discuss war financing.

Honorary Ozblogger, Kiwi Daniel Barnes, has put up commentary by Greg Nyquist on that infamously negative review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers.

Written by Admin

October 28, 2006 at 11:30 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Law, Legislation and Liberty is pretty good, too, if only because it then becomes clear that Hayek is only a utilitarian ‘in the large’. That is, he argues that evolved law and the spontaneous order will bring about a more prosperous society. The sustenance for each of his individual arguments is not consequentialist.


    October 29, 2006 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: