I have been ruminating recently. I find Hayekian ordoliberalism interesting, if a little cobbled in its processes. I have come up with some assertions that are based on ordoliberalism, and I want to see what a critique looks like:
(1) Society is in gradual evolution towards market anarchism
(2) Consumers, entrepreneurs and successful businessmen must be culturally-biased towards anarchism for the participants of a market anarchism to successfully implement it
(3) The role of the State is to ensure the first two assertions.
So, I am beginning to think it’s politically-acceptable for Libertarians to be social engineers, i.e. Statist in a fashion.
@ cognitivist,
How can the role of the state be to ensure the first two assertions? I briefly read the Wiki article, it did not frame the role of the state quite that way. Do you need to rephrase your #3?
I am saying that the role of the state is to grow and increase its power, not to ensure #1 and #2.
I don’t disagree with your assertion. But, akin to Hayek, I think that some lessons can be taken from the Pinochet regime. Of course a libertarian would not consider physical violence against political opponents. But consolidating power and forcing Libertarian propoganda and policy down the throats (perhaps too strong a phrase, but definitely honest) of those who espouse anti-market views and advocate anti-business legislation might prove more effective, because the self-evidence of a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist market versus a managed-capitalism market in terms of capital formation and distribution of wealth.
@ cognitivist
Your last sentence is too long. Have you been reading Hayek?
Ha! Your writing style is being influenced by him, no doubt.
Run-ons? I’m a life-long sufferer. Informally my writing skills are lax. Haha
Or are you referring to the spiritual influence of a great mind? Is it The Force?
Sort of like f***ing for virginity, right?
I fully believe that libertarians can be considered “social engineers” insofar as they preach a better design for society, rather than viewing contemporary society as the outcome of individual rational behavior.
Furthermore, believing that society is naturally progressing toward market anarchism seems to contradict the data: the richer a society becomes, the more government they demand.
Libertarians, for all their normative theories, can’t help but be positivists in practice. That says something about the marketplace of ideas, I think.
More insurance for greater levels of wealth. That does make sense. But insurance can be privatized, and that would automatically be more efficient. So the truth is in the numbers. Especially with a proactive Libertarian regime, this would be self-evident!
People respond to emotion far more than they respond to reason. Logos, pathos, ethos–don’t be ashamed of it.