/lit/ - Literature

>>13725117
I fucked your mom while reciting Locke

>>13725117
The OG centrist

Casually BTFOs all gay libertarian and progressivist myths about innovation, the free market, and technological growth.

>>13725117
It's a pity that Misesfags degenerated the Austrian school so much, Hayek had some of the clearest and most interesting insights into libertarianism.

we get it gramps, you like Dailooz

>>13725263

The bad blood between the adherents of Mises and those of Hayek has diminished greatly. One more generation, and we may see Hayek fully embraced once more.

>>13725252
Do you have an epub handy? FlipMoran is a cunt who only logs in for a few hours every day.

>>13725322
sorry, only in paper.

>>13725117
I don't think Hayek would claim humans have "socialist instincts"... quite the contrary which justifies property and all those other constraints he loves so much.
He's a moron because in reality all orders are designed more or less and imposed, you can only believe otherwise by ignoring all evidence to the contrary... whatever monetary system you want to think of was created and imposed by force until it became normalized.... and capitalism makes socialism necessary in its own terms, capitalism creates all the sunk costs and drives marginal costs towards zero. Capitalism fails at creating desirable order time and again to get rescued by organized power.

>>13725263
No he's even stupider .

>I'm right a priori so fuck you
vs.
>well, well what if I just graft a bunch of cybernetic speak, I don't fully understand, over my pre-existing ideology to make myself seem smarter

>>13725231
Based

>>13725914
>I don't think Hayek would claim humans have "socialist instincts"

From the article:

>Hayek did not deny that all of this entailed an alienating individualism. On the contrary, he emphasized it, and warned that it was the deepest challenge to the stability of capitalism, against which defenders of the market must always be on guard. This brings us to his account of the moral defects inherent in human nature. To take seriously the thesis that human beings are the product of biological evolution is, for Hayek, to recognize that our natural state is to live in small tribal bands of the sort in which our ancestors were shaped by natural selection. Human psychology still reflects this primitive environment. We long for solidarity with a group that shares a common purpose and provides for its members based on their personal needs and merits. The impersonal, amoral, and self-interested nature of capitalist society repels us. We are, according to Hayek, naturally socialist.

>>13725117
Complete and utter idealist nonsense.

>>13725914

>He's a moron because in reality all orders are designed more or less and imposed, you can only believe otherwise by ignoring all evidence to the contrary...

You speak these things, and yet the world around us abounds in spontaneous order.

>>13725938
Whoever wrote that junk doesn't want to distinguish between "tribal" and "socialist" "instincts". Firstly Hayeks problem with socialists were they were "rationalists" and thougth they could understand/control things he insisted didn't even exist (e.g. aggregate variables). Secondly defenders of "capitalism" had to have faith (emphasis that FAITH) in processes naturally sorting themselves out. Any problems is because people don't have enough faith.

>>13725953
But it's really not. You can see imposition of order everywhere once you look for it. Imagine taking away government monetary and fiscal policy and everyone has to use highly variable "currencies" like buttcoins to buy and sell anything... it "could work" and things "must have developed like this" because it's "logical" even if the historical record is highly problematic to that idea.

>>13725953
That pic makes your post 1000x times better. Real good choice.

>>13726009
>it "could work" and things "must have developed like this" because it's "logical" even if the historical record is highly problematic to that idea.

Words had established meanings before the advent of dictionaries. Acts were unlawfully before written laws were established. Rules aren't just created out of nothing all of a sudden by some decree. They emerge gradually, and are later codified.

>>13726009

Hayek held that people are drawn to socialism while also holding that socialism cannot help men achieve their stated aims. There's no contradiction here.

>>13726009
>magine taking away government monetary and fiscal policy and everyone has to use highly variable "currencies" like buttcoins to buy and sell anything...
Likely, people would settle onto one or a few common means of exchange, possibly one form of commodity-money emerging from the barter economy, as happened and happens in acephalous societies worldwide (with heads of cattle, animal pelts, cowshells, etc). Even in our society there are such bubbles where this trend manifests itself: cigarrettes becoming the standard of exchange in prisons. Some currencies will circulate in a more limited circle than general society, but that was normal for complex societies where only a small % of the population would have access to gold, silver or huge (in larger amounts than ordinary households would keep), standardized packages of common commodities (like the koku in feudal japan).

>>13726044
Yes and rules have been created by decrees all the time for thousands of years and that's the entire history of modern civilization e.g. interest rates in Mesopotamia were decreed and not the result of any market process and it was like that in most ancient civilizations to modern times. That might shock you but it's the truth.

>>13726055
He claimed it was an intellectual phenomena... most people were actually cool with living in slums.

>>13726065
Yes you can play hypothetical but you have all of history to study on how monetary systems arose and collapsed and it all goes back to governments and taxation. Read about how and where markets arose in antiquity. Barter is always the result of a collapsed monetary system, people can use stuff like cigarettes because they have an established understanding of exchange rates.

>>13726107
>Yes you can play hypothetical but you have all of history to study on how monetary systems arose and collapsed and it all goes back to governments and taxation.
I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I'm talking about historical records, archeology and direct anthropological observations of stateless societies that still exist.

>>13726120
Name me a historic stateless society with a monetary economy.

>>13726107
>Barter is always the result of a collapsed monetary system

Aren't we ignoring coins made of rare metals?

Historically, the fall of a ruling power didn't invalidate all the coins floating around. People could still buy and sell things with these coins.

>>13726136
The introduction of coinage has everything to do with states. There's no proof markets came up with that system and when a money economy collapsed you went into something like feudalism where most everything was paid in kind.

>>13726131

>Hiberno-Norse coins were first produced in Dublin in about 997 under the authority of King Sitric Silkbeard.

>>13726131

>>13726131
Nuer and Masai - heads of cattle.

>>13726158
>The introduction of coinage has everything to do with states.

Certainly not if by "state" we mean the modern nation state with its concomitant dissolution of competing institutions. Coinage existed already in the ancient world.

>>13726159
So a King issuing coins for tax purposes?

>>13726171
None of these function exactly like "money" as we would understand it. Credit is still predominate in these primitive societies.

>>13726178
When cattle are your unit of account most economic activity probably isn't monetized yet.

>>13726189
Why do you think those first big states in antiquity liked coins so much and spread their use?

>>13726233
>When cattle are your unit of account most economic activity probably isn't monetized yet.
What do you mean? Most transactions involve cattle as commodity-money.

>>13726233
>Why do you think those first big states in antiquity liked coins so much and spread their use?

Prestige mostly. By stamping themselves onto the coins, they legitimized their authority. It also improved the lives of citizens by making the exchange of goods more convenient through the standardization of currency. This also lent legitimacy to their rule.

>>13725117
>the socialist instincts hardwired into us by biological evolution.

>>13726233
>So a King issuing coins for tax purposes?

Keep in mind that taxation was not a given in the ancient world, and was also heavily constrained by how much one could practically extract from the populace.

>>13726247
>Most transactions involve cattle as commodity-money.
If you have to use cattle to settle transactions not much buying and selling is going to be going on so any economy is largly self-sufficient and markets aren't playing any big role in life.

>>13726256
It wasn't just prestige like you admit it was a way of imposing a new sort of arrangement on people that was preferential for emerging states.

>>13726270
https://michael-hudson.com/2018/04/palatial-credit-origins-of-money-and-interest/
>...When there were no more realms for imperial Rome to conquer and extract tribute, the inability to tax the oligarchic economy led to debasement of the coinage. Replacing the State Theory of money by treating money simply as a commodity led to a monetary drain – ultimately forcing resort to barter.
>The main difference between Greek and Roman economies and those of the Ancient Near East was the absence of debt relief, resulting in a long series of political crises extending from the 7th-century BC “tyrants” (populist reformers) from classical Sparta and Corinth down to Rome in the 1st century BC. Mid-19th-century historians attributed these debt crises to the introduction of coinage around the 7th and 6th centuries BC, when Greek city-states issued coins imprinted with their city-images, such as the owls of Athens. But moneychangers still weighed coins from the various cities, in keeping with the use of weighed bullion that predated coinage by about two thousand years.
>The economic impact of coinage thus did not differ much from that of hacksilver. So it was not money, coinage or even interest-bearing debt by themselves that caused the polarization under antiquity’s creditor oligarchies. The problem was the way in which society handled the proliferation of interest-bearing debt.
>As credit was increasingly privatized, debt became a dynamic powerful enough to dissolve the checks and balances that had shaped the social context in which money first developed. Mesopotamia had usury and debt bondage, but its rulers managed to avoid the irreversible disenfranchisement and ultimate serfdom that plagued the Mediterranean lands. The Near Eastern aim was to preserve a land-tenured citizenry supplying the palace with corvée labor and military service. Despite the palace’s role as the major creditor, it protected debtors by debt amnesties that undid the polarizing effect of interest-bearing debt. Most debts in early Mesopotamia were owed to the palace, so rulers basically were cancelling debts owed to themselves and their collectors when they proclaimed Clean Slates that saved their economies from widespread debt bondage that would have diverted labor to work for creditors at the expense of the palace.
>But as debts came to be owed mainly to Greek and Roman oligarchies, debts no longer were canceled except in military or social emergencies to maintain the demos-army’s loyalty. What came to be “sanctified” was the right of creditors to foreclose, not cancelling debts to restore economic balance.

test?

>>13725117
So Hayek is close to Marx.

>>13726065
Exchange value is used when you don't thrust people.
It tells a lot about our current values and way of life.

>>13726263

... Hayek mean't the family and relations within small groups... retard.

>>13727721
Which isn't "socialism" and I don't think Hayek claimed that anywhere unless you can cite otherwise

>>13725117
>favored by natural selection of a cultural (as opposed to biological) sort
He lost me. Culture comes from biological entities, does it not

>>13727872
Do you call software hardware since it runs on it? No obviously.

He's wrong to say "natural selection" to describe this sort of "selection" though, culture is more Lamarckian. There's notting Darwinian about cultural development.

>>13727853
>Which isn't "socialism"
It is.

>>13727917
Socialism isn't just various narrow parochialisms, it's more universalistic.

>>13728745

Socialism embraces a universalizing mission in its most articulated forms, but its still animated by the beating heart of communal tribalism. What else is the brotherhood of man if not a common tribe?

It might be useful to examine the writings of Soviet anthropologists and their conception of "primitive communism."

>>13728781
You don't seem to appreciate that "communal tribalism" and universalism are diametrically opposed ideas. It's not an extension but a negation.

Also not even those "Soviet anthropologists" thougth "primitive communism" was socialism, it's a totally different idea. One is based on preventing the possibility of a social surplus from arising in the first place so no problems arise as a result whereas socialism is about managing the social surplus. Very different activities.

>>13728896
>"communal tribalism" and universalism are diametrically opposed ideas

The contradiction is resolved once the world is ruled by a united world proletariat. The point is that tribalism and universalism can be combined by pushing for an ever more inclusive tribe.

>>13729111
I have no idea what you're getting at here. Hayek or Marx? Marx stated socialism arises out of the internal logic of capitalism not an extension of brotherly love or something whereas Hayek claimed it was an impossible idea thougth up by overintellecualized rationalists. Hayek didn't claim institutions like the family in any way represented socialism and he had faith in it precisely because of its parochialism. You're posing this in terms not relevant.

bump

>>13725117
Just stick with Hoppe

>>13725252
Based.

>>13725117
GAY GAY GAY AS FUCK
AND BORING
AND FICTITIOUS
A GAY BORING BIT OF FICTION
NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY INTERESTING OR TRUTHFUL
IF CHILDREN'S CARTOONS WERE INCARNATED IN MAN

what's with these braindead old hacks? how the fuck can you spend your life dribbling this literal dog shit? I don't get it. An illiterate slave labourer down in the mines has a more intellectually fulfilling and original life, one that he will never speak a word about. It's just embarrassing to know their names.

>>13725231
no one who's read locke has ever had sex. this is a fact.

>>13731868
Seek help

>philosopher is balding/wears glasses/has a big nose/doesn't work out

>>13732150
*snap*

>>13725117

A daisy chain of conjectures.

I think what he’s trying to say is that non-socialist workers are class-cucks, obvs

>>13725117
The problem is people who are pro socialism think there's gonna be a lot of wealth for anyone, when socialism is shit at wealth creation.

>>13725117
>The rules of capitalist society favored by cultural evolution are at loggerheads with the socialist instincts hardwired into us by biological evolution.
Bullshit. Why?

>>13733715
Why not?