La encíclica papal confronta tanto a neo-liberales progresistas como a conservadores anti-woke, pues el principio de subsidiariedad defendido por Magnifica Humanitas es contrario a ambos
Wait, has Thiel appropriated both Girard and Hayek to his anarchocapitalist agenda?
I can find no evidence in Hayek's essays that he would support artificial intelligence, and certainly not for some kind of free-market-authenticated centralized authority. Quite the opposite from what I've read: he is implicitly defending subsidiarity across the board. And just because Elon tweeted himself holding "The Road to Serfdom" doesn't mean Elon ever read it, nor that Hayek is in their camp (i.e. Elon's nihilistic transhumanism, or Thiel's eschatological anarchocapitalist camp).
I had dinner with a Palantir board member not long ago – as you might not be surprised to hear: he had zero thoughts on any of this (teleologically-obsessed tech bros don't stop to think ontologically at all). To him (this guy I had dinner with), it's all just opportunity, regardless of the implications or externalities. These types will not inherit the earth, as they've already abandoned it.
Hayek aside, as for a (currently alive) economist who explicitly makes an analytical case for the principle of subsidiarity, check out Richard Werner.
Is this where you purchased Magnifica Humanitas? I need to get a copy:
Just to put a finer point on it, "Hayek's idea of spontaneous order is conceived as something beyond the grasp of the human mind" is not something that can be planned, and Hayek is very clear about that. What can only grasp this is the "invisible hand" metaphor coined by Scottish economist Adam Smith in his 1776 treatise, The Wealth of Nations. It describes how individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a free market unintentionally benefit society as a whole, creating order and efficiency without central planning – subsidiarity.
If Elon and Thiel have (intentionally) misread Hayek as a justification for their technocratic growth and AI implementation, then that's on them and not Hayek.
Hi Jason, I do believe that Bruna Frascolla's characterization of Hayek as the father of the EU's ordoliberal dictatorship is correct. In fact, Hayek himself stated that he preferred a dictatorship like Pinochet's in Chile to a democratic regime that interfered with the functioning of the free market. Not only that, but he encouraged Margaret Thatcher to suspend much of parliament's power through an "elective dictatorship" that would ensure the implementation of neoliberal reforms (for example, eliminating the power of trade unions) to guarantee the establishment of a free market society. The EU, which has ordoliberal origins, is inseparable from Hayekian neoliberalism. Its structure is contrary to democracy and forcibly imposes a Hayekian conception of the economy on its citizens, as an entity separate from politics. In this sense, I would say that the EU demonstrates that ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are two sides of the same coin. Similarly, I think it's easy to connect Hayek's commitment to separating economics and politics with the economic ideology of Musk, Thiel, and their Silicon Valley bros.
Very interesting, I wasn't aware of those historical anecdotes pertaining to Hayek – almost sounds like Hayek forgot his own theses after the war ended! Such a phenomenon is not uncommon amongst intellectuals sadly, but I'll have to review his work again before saying any more.
Ah, and here Palantir's manifesto – "The Technological Republic" haha...
In point-two: "Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization?" No, with two decades of hindsight we can easily say that smartphones have made our lives worse. This manifesto is nuts! I'll take the Magnifica Humanitas instead please.
Are you referring to Slobidian’s “Hayek’s Bastards”? I’m only now discovering this guy’s work – I’ll have to check it out. My hunch is that he attributes to Hayek (as “Far Right” or “alt-right”) what Hayek would correctly identify as national socialism however (and not free-market capitalism). Okay, so according to Slobidian, globalization is a product of neoliberal (now “neoconfederate” defiance), whereas globalism is on the way to socialist equality? So much jargon, only a Harfraud fellow could keep track of it all! But I think we’ve straightened it out enough to follow where it leads.
On the back of another book of his “Muskism” (is this Slobidian’s summary or someone else’s?) states that “If Fordism defined the capitalism of the twentieth century, Muskism may define the twenty-first. Fordism helped build the welfare state. Musk undoes it. He thrives on dependence while preaching freedom.” Yes, Musk is a textbook fascist – regarding his imperative of strengthening public-private partnerships to the moon, Mars, and according to the SpaceX mission: “the stars” beyond!
Historians of neoliberalism are notorious for overlooking the forest for the trees on socioeconomic topics however – for example: nitpicking about the racial injustice of monetary policy while failing to identify how central banking is fundamentally flawed (and robs everyone sooner than later).
Of course I can’t cite his works without reading it, and admit this is a presumptuous take on my part, but it sounds like Slobidian seeks to discredit Hayek, who remains one of the most succinct and effective critics of socialism, by retroactively adopting fascist technocrats into Hayek’s family of intellectual inheritors (to be fair, labeled as “bastards” as Hayek had no say in this posthumous adoption). Again, just because Elon tweets himself holding Hayek doesn’t mean anything – for the record I have never trusted Elon (let’s not forget he wants to chip our brains for goodness sake, and speciously espouses UBI as “Universal High Income”).
But sounds like Slobidian is doing what so many academic types have rhetorically mastered: grouping the greatest threats to their ideology (and department’s politics) into stigmatized buckets without actually addressing their subject’s reasonable ideas with any intellectual rigor or honesty – no doubt because in his heart of hearts Slobidian knows Hayek’s criticisms of socialism falsify progressive ideals, whereas free-market dynamics stand on their own, even in the most manipulated of markets (as we currently have). And the conflations are consistent with academic sophistry: a “goldbug” is not necessarily bedfellows with an “ethnonationalist”, but the back of this book might have you worried otherwise! These conflations are often employed by consensus-driving voices, whose plans depend on conformity, because conflating discredits the “control group” so to speak.
But what’s worse? Slandering a sound discourse by retroactively adopting misfits (as Slobidian does to the Mises Institute school of thought, shunting tech bros under that roof), or appropriating it in bad-faith (as said misfits Musk and Thiel do, as they seek to conquer Middle Earth)?
Taking a big step back, here we are in the Brownstone comment section, which was created as a critical response to covid tyranny – something that would’ve never plagued the West if it weren’t for central banking, fiat monetary policy, socialist nonsense, central planning hubris, and big government abuse of civil liberties. For better understanding what covid was about, what it diagnosed of our post-war debtmaxxing world, of what academics call neoliberalism (when in fact what they are usually looking at is actually a form of national socialism or “crapitalism” i.e. crony-capitalism), and what comes next, I’d much rather reach for the Mises Institute literature than Slobidian’s.
As a tangential aside, when I was pursuing my PhD at Harfraud, I’d hang out with the History doctorate candidates, including the gifted kid Tim Barker – who focused on neoliberalism, seems like in a similar vein to Slobidian. Maybe you already know this, but the Ivory Tower is no authority on reality, and Tim once admitted to me, “I suck at work, I can’t work, I have to become an academic.” Who is he to pontificate on labor policy then? I enjoyed his conversation and company, he’s clearly intelligent, but the parochial insistence on an ideological (rather than empirical) model of society is nothing short of insane. In the spirit of subsidiarity, how about we let people decide what’s best for their pluralistic lives? Here’s his take on central banking and injustice, which completely misses the point—that the Mises Institute, the “bastard” Murray Rothbard for that matter, hits the bullseye by comparison. But here’s a sample of condoned academic discourse on this kind of stuff:
Admittedly, I’m being somewhat of a hypocrite – doing in no small part what I’m criticizing – let’s leave my old pal Tim out of this; not relevant. Too much Substack for me, I need a timeout! Excuse my ramble response there.
El denominado Estado es un número reducido de personas con nombre y apellido que hace lo que le da la gana y sin dar explicaciones. Y votar no resuelve el problema
Wait, has Thiel appropriated both Girard and Hayek to his anarchocapitalist agenda?
I can find no evidence in Hayek's essays that he would support artificial intelligence, and certainly not for some kind of free-market-authenticated centralized authority. Quite the opposite from what I've read: he is implicitly defending subsidiarity across the board. And just because Elon tweeted himself holding "The Road to Serfdom" doesn't mean Elon ever read it, nor that Hayek is in their camp (i.e. Elon's nihilistic transhumanism, or Thiel's eschatological anarchocapitalist camp).
I had dinner with a Palantir board member not long ago – as you might not be surprised to hear: he had zero thoughts on any of this (teleologically-obsessed tech bros don't stop to think ontologically at all). To him (this guy I had dinner with), it's all just opportunity, regardless of the implications or externalities. These types will not inherit the earth, as they've already abandoned it.
Hayek aside, as for a (currently alive) economist who explicitly makes an analytical case for the principle of subsidiarity, check out Richard Werner.
Is this where you purchased Magnifica Humanitas? I need to get a copy:
https://ignatius.com/magnifica-humanitas-magnificent-humanity-mhh/
Just to put a finer point on it, "Hayek's idea of spontaneous order is conceived as something beyond the grasp of the human mind" is not something that can be planned, and Hayek is very clear about that. What can only grasp this is the "invisible hand" metaphor coined by Scottish economist Adam Smith in his 1776 treatise, The Wealth of Nations. It describes how individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a free market unintentionally benefit society as a whole, creating order and efficiency without central planning – subsidiarity.
If Elon and Thiel have (intentionally) misread Hayek as a justification for their technocratic growth and AI implementation, then that's on them and not Hayek.
Hi Jason, I do believe that Bruna Frascolla's characterization of Hayek as the father of the EU's ordoliberal dictatorship is correct. In fact, Hayek himself stated that he preferred a dictatorship like Pinochet's in Chile to a democratic regime that interfered with the functioning of the free market. Not only that, but he encouraged Margaret Thatcher to suspend much of parliament's power through an "elective dictatorship" that would ensure the implementation of neoliberal reforms (for example, eliminating the power of trade unions) to guarantee the establishment of a free market society. The EU, which has ordoliberal origins, is inseparable from Hayekian neoliberalism. Its structure is contrary to democracy and forcibly imposes a Hayekian conception of the economy on its citizens, as an entity separate from politics. In this sense, I would say that the EU demonstrates that ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are two sides of the same coin. Similarly, I think it's easy to connect Hayek's commitment to separating economics and politics with the economic ideology of Musk, Thiel, and their Silicon Valley bros.
I like Quinn Slobodian's work. On Hayek, there is "Globalists".
“This history of ideas shows us that the reported clash of opposites is more like a family feud.”
Very interesting, I wasn't aware of those historical anecdotes pertaining to Hayek – almost sounds like Hayek forgot his own theses after the war ended! Such a phenomenon is not uncommon amongst intellectuals sadly, but I'll have to review his work again before saying any more.
Ah, and here Palantir's manifesto – "The Technological Republic" haha...
https://x.com/PalantirTech/status/2045574398573453312
In point-two: "Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization?" No, with two decades of hindsight we can easily say that smartphones have made our lives worse. This manifesto is nuts! I'll take the Magnifica Humanitas instead please.
Are you referring to Slobidian’s “Hayek’s Bastards”? I’m only now discovering this guy’s work – I’ll have to check it out. My hunch is that he attributes to Hayek (as “Far Right” or “alt-right”) what Hayek would correctly identify as national socialism however (and not free-market capitalism). Okay, so according to Slobidian, globalization is a product of neoliberal (now “neoconfederate” defiance), whereas globalism is on the way to socialist equality? So much jargon, only a Harfraud fellow could keep track of it all! But I think we’ve straightened it out enough to follow where it leads.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781890951917/hayeks-bastards
On the back of another book of his “Muskism” (is this Slobidian’s summary or someone else’s?) states that “If Fordism defined the capitalism of the twentieth century, Muskism may define the twenty-first. Fordism helped build the welfare state. Musk undoes it. He thrives on dependence while preaching freedom.” Yes, Musk is a textbook fascist – regarding his imperative of strengthening public-private partnerships to the moon, Mars, and according to the SpaceX mission: “the stars” beyond!
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/muskism-quinn-slobodianben-tarnoff?variant=43838135402530
Historians of neoliberalism are notorious for overlooking the forest for the trees on socioeconomic topics however – for example: nitpicking about the racial injustice of monetary policy while failing to identify how central banking is fundamentally flawed (and robs everyone sooner than later).
Of course I can’t cite his works without reading it, and admit this is a presumptuous take on my part, but it sounds like Slobidian seeks to discredit Hayek, who remains one of the most succinct and effective critics of socialism, by retroactively adopting fascist technocrats into Hayek’s family of intellectual inheritors (to be fair, labeled as “bastards” as Hayek had no say in this posthumous adoption). Again, just because Elon tweets himself holding Hayek doesn’t mean anything – for the record I have never trusted Elon (let’s not forget he wants to chip our brains for goodness sake, and speciously espouses UBI as “Universal High Income”).
But sounds like Slobidian is doing what so many academic types have rhetorically mastered: grouping the greatest threats to their ideology (and department’s politics) into stigmatized buckets without actually addressing their subject’s reasonable ideas with any intellectual rigor or honesty – no doubt because in his heart of hearts Slobidian knows Hayek’s criticisms of socialism falsify progressive ideals, whereas free-market dynamics stand on their own, even in the most manipulated of markets (as we currently have). And the conflations are consistent with academic sophistry: a “goldbug” is not necessarily bedfellows with an “ethnonationalist”, but the back of this book might have you worried otherwise! These conflations are often employed by consensus-driving voices, whose plans depend on conformity, because conflating discredits the “control group” so to speak.
But what’s worse? Slandering a sound discourse by retroactively adopting misfits (as Slobidian does to the Mises Institute school of thought, shunting tech bros under that roof), or appropriating it in bad-faith (as said misfits Musk and Thiel do, as they seek to conquer Middle Earth)?
Taking a big step back, here we are in the Brownstone comment section, which was created as a critical response to covid tyranny – something that would’ve never plagued the West if it weren’t for central banking, fiat monetary policy, socialist nonsense, central planning hubris, and big government abuse of civil liberties. For better understanding what covid was about, what it diagnosed of our post-war debtmaxxing world, of what academics call neoliberalism (when in fact what they are usually looking at is actually a form of national socialism or “crapitalism” i.e. crony-capitalism), and what comes next, I’d much rather reach for the Mises Institute literature than Slobidian’s.
As a tangential aside, when I was pursuing my PhD at Harfraud, I’d hang out with the History doctorate candidates, including the gifted kid Tim Barker – who focused on neoliberalism, seems like in a similar vein to Slobidian. Maybe you already know this, but the Ivory Tower is no authority on reality, and Tim once admitted to me, “I suck at work, I can’t work, I have to become an academic.” Who is he to pontificate on labor policy then? I enjoyed his conversation and company, he’s clearly intelligent, but the parochial insistence on an ideological (rather than empirical) model of society is nothing short of insane. In the spirit of subsidiarity, how about we let people decide what’s best for their pluralistic lives? Here’s his take on central banking and injustice, which completely misses the point—that the Mises Institute, the “bastard” Murray Rothbard for that matter, hits the bullseye by comparison. But here’s a sample of condoned academic discourse on this kind of stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5w15K2YNZk
Admittedly, I’m being somewhat of a hypocrite – doing in no small part what I’m criticizing – let’s leave my old pal Tim out of this; not relevant. Too much Substack for me, I need a timeout! Excuse my ramble response there.
Querida Bruna
El denominado Estado es un número reducido de personas con nombre y apellido que hace lo que le da la gana y sin dar explicaciones. Y votar no resuelve el problema