|
Different groups value different types of freedom. Combine that with some of those groups having an absolutist understandings of freedom that deny any alternative understandings of freedom. Capitalism can be anti-democratic if it emphasizes "freedom to" while denying the need to be "free from." The screaming current example trying to force that condition: Libertarianism ends up anti democratic. Is it anti-democratic because it is absolutist or is it because it's capitalist/liberal? I think the anti-democratic situation is the result of absolutism. I don't think capitalism has to do this. Capitalism can have the "free to" that markets provide and it can have the "free from" that the state provides in the form of controls on those markets, in government structures that give us freedoms from. Laws, regulations and public institutions things like real campaign finance laws, or progressive tax rates, or investment in public goods (like school or infrastructure), there is no real reason those things cannot be part of capitalism other than that a group of absolutists opposes them dogmatically. Capital In The 21st Century, may end up being incredibly important. Because it shows that "free to" without "free from" hurts society by concentrating wealth. The foundation of the Austrian School is praxeology. This initial "action axiom", asserts that individual freedom to is the good and the center of history. Piketty’s book shows this foundation of the Austrian School to be a falsehood. It cuts the heart out of their absolute, smashing that foundation, while simultaneously providing a foundation on which to make arguments for things like progressive tax rates, etc.
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
Nessus posted:It won't stop them, though, because It limits the ability they have to influence people not participating in Austrian Economics. The rich crank true believers aren't going to drop Libertarianism over this. But they hire people and media to argue in public for the end of advancing their ideology, now in response Piketty can be pointed to. When it's pointed to it cuts the legs off those arguments to people who don't necessarily buy praxeology but might have been influenced by arguments coming from it. There are a lot of those people. People who if you explained Austrian economics to would probably reject it, but who haven't examined it or don't really know what it is. Pointing to Piketty implies a conclusion. If a right wing commenter goes with an Austrian argument and the response is to point to the thesis of "Capital In The 21st Century", implied is that the right wing commenter is making an error or being deceptive. Maybe I can say this in another way. When they made their arguments in public before Piketty. One couldn't say in response "You're a goddam liar" or "What you believe amounts to a lie" without looking like a dick or frankly without being a bit of a dick. After Piketty's book, one can point to that book and "You're a goddam liar" becomes implied without having to be said, and in a way that is compelling and evidence based. Then the rightwing commenter is left with attacking Piketty's idea with an ad hominem (say Communist), which will make him/her look like a dick. I think that's a pretty big deal. Edit: They might still win anyway. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:46 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 18:12
|
|