Actually, now that you mention it, there's a lot of Hayek that I really like! (especially social philosophy on social philosophy... What is more, I have always made my living by being very good at taking advantage of the division of knowledge and the spontaneous order! )

In the end, I explain myself as a radical liberal because that is the easiest way to give people a general idea of my practical politics and voting record. However, my ideologies are very complex, and very personal, rooted in philosophy and not in any current social framework. Thus there are significant portions of Classical Liberalism that I find complimentary to my ideas, even if I disagree at some points.

What is mo...

Actually, now that you mention it, there's a lot of Hayek that I really like! (especially social philosophy on social philosophy... What is more, I have always made my living by being very good at taking advantage of the division of knowledge and the spontaneous order! )

In the end, I explain myself as a radical liberal because that is the easiest way to give people a general idea of my practical politics and voting record. However, my ideologies are very complex, and very personal, rooted in philosophy and not in any current social framework. Thus there are significant portions of Classical Liberalism that I find complimentary to my ideas, even if I disagree at some points.

What is more, I suppose one could look at it this way: I am a believer in intellectualism over ignorance more than anything else. Thus I have a soft spot for anyone who is developing serious philosophical details, and on some fundamental level, although I can't supply a good reason, I feel that they are all some how connected.

(If you're so surprised, you must have missed my Oakeshott clip!)

In a more topical comment, it's not that I oppose Bush because he is a capitalist. I oppose him and his agenda because from what I've seen he doesn't have the slightest understanding of how capitalism works. Actually, since Cniq-Cniq brought up Hayek, I find some of the ideas in his last book Economic Freedom, to be very useful.

I am concerned about the individual within the context of society. I feel that Bush has in some ways increased political coercion in our society, but more importantly, he appears to have dedicated his Presidency to creating a system of Economic Coercion which "benefits" large corporations at the expense of the consumer and the free market. Many of his policies I be...

In a more topical comment, it's not that I oppose Bush because he is a capitalist. I oppose him and his agenda because from what I've seen he doesn't have the slightest understanding of how capitalism works. Actually, since Cniq-Cniq brought up Hayek, I find some of the ideas in his last book Economic Freedom, to be very useful.

I am concerned about the individual within the context of society. I feel that Bush has in some ways increased political coercion in our society, but more importantly, he appears to have dedicated his Presidency to creating a system of Economic Coercion which "benefits" large corporations at the expense of the consumer and the free market. Many of his policies I believe are actually designed to protect companies from the natural forces effecting the market, such as the environment, the scarcity of certain viscous black resources and the economic conditions of their consumers.

I believe that the free market serves the individual, not the corporation. In this regards I am not so far from Hayek as one may think. Furthermore, my concern is that the Bush and Regan governments (especially the idea of "Trickle Down Economics") succumbs to the same "economic calculation problem" that Mises used to criticize socialism.

In the end, I will probably disagree with everyone at some point on some issues, but I'll also probably agree with them sometimes as well. In this respect, Mises and Hayek are no different from anyone else.

In an even more topical application:

Consider the current interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve, which I believe is being kept artificially low despite a strong (until recently) market in mortgages.

The personal debt of the average American has soared under the Bush administration. This is a very alarming indicator indeed, and I think it is a direct product of the Bush Administration's miscalculation of how to "manage" the economy.

I believe that keeping the interest rates artificially low is causing unsound investments which will eventually destabilize the economy. It may have done so already without us even knowing it. Over-borrowing pressures the supply of captial which lenders c...

In an even more topical application:

Consider the current interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve, which I believe is being kept artificially low despite a strong (until recently) market in mortgages.

The personal debt of the average American has soared under the Bush administration. This is a very alarming indicator indeed, and I think it is a direct product of the Bush Administration's miscalculation of how to "manage" the economy.

I believe that keeping the interest rates artificially low is causing unsound investments which will eventually destabilize the economy. It may have done so already without us even knowing it. Over-borrowing pressures the supply of captial which lenders can use, however Bush's errosion of the laws that hold the lenders responsible for the risk in their lending practices has encouraged them to continue lending, thus over-extending themselves.

For an example, consider the effect of his "reforms" of personal bankruptcy on the credit card industry. These companies can and do make loans to people who they do not believe will be able to repay them. They rely on their ability to seize assets to recoup their losses, and they calculate their profits in terms of presumed future returns. This is a very fragile situation indeed.

If such strict barriers always applied, I would be surprised to see you reading Mises. What's next.....Hayek?

(If you're so surprised, you must have missed my Oakeshott clip!)

Actually, I'm not the least bit surprised. The key word in my comment was if.

Just as you identify yourself as a radical Liberal due to the ease it affords others to understand your general philosophy, I identify myself as a Burkean conservative. Even so, a thinking person tends to me more complex and will never completely fix the contours of such tidy boxes. Unfortunately, I find that too many do not understand the nuiances of such complexity.

Funny that one of the persons...

If such strict barriers always applied, I would be surprised to see you reading Mises. What's next.....Hayek?

(If you're so surprised, you must have missed my Oakeshott clip!)

Actually, I'm not the least bit surprised. The key word in my comment was if.

Just as you identify yourself as a radical Liberal due to the ease it affords others to understand your general philosophy, I identify myself as a Burkean conservative. Even so, a thinking person tends to me more complex and will never completely fix the contours of such tidy boxes. Unfortunately, I find that too many do not understand the nuiances of such complexity.

Funny that one of the persons with whom I share the least in terms of political or religious philosophy, is also one of the persons with whom I share the most in terms of intellectual philosophy. Call me biased, but the answers to many of our problems in society today could be found easier if the attitude you present were more commonly held. Surely you and I would reach differing conclusions, but we could at least debate the alternatives civilly and with intellectual honesty. Speaking of which, there is quite a bit to discuss in your two later posts, but that will have to wait until I have some time tomorrow.