"...social justice, greater equality, and security.." But Hayek calls these "merely ideals" which hints that they cannot be completely achieved. (hayek 37)
a possible ultimate aim of socialism, is not complete socialism. since 'social justice' is defined by the society in which it exists, and each individual in the society has a different opinion on every idea, only comprimises can be achieved. which could explain the 'greater epuality' part and not total equality as to be expected. our individuality is our down fall. it seperates us, it makes it impossible to be a fully functioning socialist society, just because we depend on each other, we must also depend on ourselves for self preservation, the inate, constant desire to survive, even if it means the down fall of other, even loved ones. Hayek mentions 'security', in a society where we are so dependant on helping each other, that it would not be benifical or even neutral as to harming each other, or killing each other, we would be better aware of each others possible contributions, not their detractions of society. improving our desire to help, not kill. the possibility of a totally 100% socialist society could not exist with out generations of a dictatorship of totalitarian control and a colaboration of fear and monetary militarism(sp).i.e. 'the middle east, central america, mexico, urban america, europe, russia, the ottoman empire, asian, any where in the world where people feel oppressed.' ( use this as a study helper, or imaginative assistant for thought into subjects that require semi-abstract thought.) -adrian aldridge
The specific idea of man versus society will be covered in JSMIll's On Liberty (especially chapter 4). We must read the Introductions (and post questions) in order to understand Hayeks' thesis regarding freedom and socialism. We will also note later, as Adrian has in the last two comments, that Hayek is aware of capitalism's lack of perfection.
2 comments:
a possible ultimate aim of socialism, is not complete socialism. since 'social justice' is defined by the society in which it exists, and each individual in the society has a different opinion on every idea, only comprimises can be achieved. which could explain the 'greater epuality' part and not total equality as to be expected. our individuality is our down fall. it seperates us, it makes it impossible to be a fully functioning socialist society, just because we depend on each other, we must also depend on ourselves for self preservation, the inate, constant desire to survive, even if it means the down fall of other, even loved ones. Hayek mentions 'security', in a society where we are so dependant on helping each other, that it would not be benifical or even neutral as to harming each other, or killing each other, we would be better aware of each others possible contributions, not their detractions of society. improving our desire to help, not kill. the possibility of a totally 100% socialist society could not exist with out generations of a dictatorship of totalitarian control and a colaboration of fear and monetary militarism(sp).i.e. 'the middle east, central america, mexico, urban america, europe, russia, the ottoman empire, asian, any where in the world where people feel oppressed.'
( use this as a study helper, or imaginative assistant for thought into subjects that require semi-abstract thought.)
-adrian aldridge
The specific idea of man versus society will be covered in JSMIll's On Liberty (especially chapter 4). We must read the Introductions (and post questions) in order to understand Hayeks' thesis regarding freedom and socialism. We will also note later, as Adrian has in the last two comments, that Hayek is aware of capitalism's lack of perfection.
Post a Comment