Re: Re: Re: Hayek's Conception of Knowledge (was Re: Harry Magdoff on market socialism)

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JKS wrote:
> Nice, can I use this? I'll credit you with it. Of course i don't think the
> IH is God. The IH obviates the need for God. You don't need one entity
> that smart who knows everything if you have a lot of little entities not
> so smart who know a little bit and a means of coordinating their
> knowledge. --jks

you may use my quote, if you insert the sentence "There Is No Alternative"
after "(c) market rule is inevitable."

The fact that you think that the Invisible Hand isn't a secular version of
God suggests that you haven't studied economics (and economists) very much.

> I meant to say in a message that got scrambled that it was not you but
> others whom I meant in my swipe at Rousseaeanism. I don't think attcaking
> an ideal that may actually motivate people is an ad homimem. ...

Apology accepted. Look at the current issue of POLITICS & SOCIETY for my
take on Rousseau.

> Hayek's position -- so ably put forth by Justin -- seems to be (a) in
> order to avoid market rule, there needs to be a God; but (b) God does not
> exist; so (c) market rule is inevitable. But then he assumes that God
> exists in the form of the Invisible Hand.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine