 |
 |
Hi Craig, Thanks for that post. Could you possibly post a url to an archive of the discussion? Steve --- Chirag Kasbekar <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > This is quite a coincidence... there was recently a hot debate on > the > Hayek-L list on the compatibility of deep ecological thinking with > Austrian > economics. Gus diZerega, also on this list, was one of the chief > participants in that one. > > I think the discussion here does not really do justice to Hayek. > It's really > no help to demonise someone like him. Criticise him, yes, but I > think deep > ecologists should pay greater attention to this thinker. > > I think you should consult Gus diZerega's very important work to > appreciate > how a somewhat Hayekian perspective can enrich environmental ethics > and > political discussion in general. (And some of the areas in which > Hayek > erred.) Check out the material on his website: > > http://www.dizerega.com > > Also his book on democratic self-organisation: "Persuasion, Power > and > Polity: A Theory of Democratic Self-organisation." And some other > forthcoming work on the similarity between the arguments Hayek and > Mises > made against central planning and the arguments against human > control of > natural processes. > > Essentially, Hayek and his associates had a pretty > evolutionary/ecological > perspective on human society, even if they focussed too much on > market > institutions and ignored the potential of democratic > self-organisation. > > And I don't think Hayek really claimed that "everything" should > have a > price. I think he did admit that there are some values (for example > those > expressed in small intimate communities) that cannot rely on the > price > mechanism for expression. > > And I also don't think he was a libertarian. He thought a great > deal of > government action appropriate -- even a minimim guaranteed income > for those > that cannot make it in the market. He also donated some of his > Nobel prize > money to the WWF and offered his name for their use, even if he > definitely > was not overtly deep ecological in his thinking. He characterised > his > political stance as "evolutionary liberalism" or classical > liberalism (which > is not really libertarian). But you can detect a type of gradualism > in his > thinking that could be taken for a form of conservativism, even he > disavowed > conservatism in his 1960 preface, "Why I am not a conservative." > > Warm regards, > Chirag Kasbekar > The Information Company, > New Bombay, India ===== "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." --Jamey Lee West __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com