There is much that is original and good in Hayek - like there is in Marx.
The trouble in both these two coercive socialists ideas is that which is good is not original and that which is original is not good.
Flooding the cone
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/16pmcpp/libertarians_whats_your_take_on_milton_friedman/
Hoppe vs Hayek
The debate between Hans Hermann Hoppe and Friedrich Hayek centers on their differing views on the role of government in society and the allocation of resources. Hoppe, a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, argues that private property rights and voluntary exchange are the most efficient means of resource allocation, advocating for the abolition of government altogether. In contrast, Hayek, a classical liberal, emphasizes the importance of spontaneous order and the limitations of central planning, believing that markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources. Hayek also advocates for limited government and the rule of law to protect individual rights and maintain social order.
Hoppe's views on coercion and knowledge problem are particularly critical of Hayek's definitions and elaborations on the concept of freedom and coercion. Hoppe argues that Hayek's definitions are vague and do not provide a clear understanding of coercion . . . "
Hoppe's views on coercion and knowledge problem are particularly critical of Hayek's definitions and elaborations on the concept of freedom and coercion. Hoppe argues that Hayek's definitions are vague and do not provide a clear understanding of coercion . . . "
No comments:
Post a Comment