Skip to main content

View Diary: Charles Koch: Social Security for me, but not for thee (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know enough not to let someone piss down my back (0+ / 0-)

    and try to convince me it's raining.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 11:06:44 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps not (0+ / 0-)

      But "Hayek and his supporters" means almost nothing, especially as I very strongly doubt you could tell us a blessed thing about Hayek beyond some vague sense that he may not have been a wholehearted supporter of government-run pension programs. OTOH, as you might have gleaned from the essay quoted in the comments, neither was he simply any cheerleader for conservatism. Instead, he was a serious economist doing complex, serious and valuable work, making complex, serious and valuable criticisms that, among others, Keynes took seriously and thought valuable. It's also worth mentioning Hayek's Nobel Prize as yet other evidence, as if it were necessary, that he and Palin aren't quite batting in the same league. I stand by my suggestion that you do some reading (more than the Wikipedia, I would hope, but even that would be a start).

      •  You STILL seem to be denying that Hayek (0+ / 0-)

        made a decision (to partake of a secure and whole Social Security system) that he would deny me and other Americans.

        "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

        by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 01:51:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

          you don't really understand anything at all about Hayek, do you. Sorry I wasted either of our time.

          •  I'm willing to confess my ignorance of Hayek (0+ / 0-)

            if you'll admit Hayek apparently thought Social Security was good enough for him but not for me.

            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

            by bartcopfan on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 02:19:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What Hayek really said (0+ / 0-)

              Took awhile, but I turned up the page I wanted. The reason why I don't "admit" your thought is because, it's just plain wrong. In short, Hayek is not any sort of Tea Party or Palin fellow traveler, and ignorance makes for bad discourse and bum raps. Here is Mr. Hayek:

              "There is, however, yet another class of common risks with regard to which the need for government has until recently not been generally admitted and where as the result of the dissolution of the ties of the local community, and of the development of a highly mobile open society, an increasing number of people are no longer closely associated with particular groups whose help and support they can count upon in the case of misfortune. The problem here is chiefly the fate of those who for various reasons cannot make their living in the market, such as the sick, the old, the physically or mentally defective, the widows and orphans—that is all people suffering from adverse conditions which may affect anyone and against which most individuals cannot alone make adequate provision but in which a society that has reached a certain level of wealth can afford to provide for all. The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born."

              F.A. Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 3, pp. 54–55.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site