WILLIAM F BUCKLEY – FRIEDRICH HAYEK – GEORGE ROCHE – A SOCIAL JUSTICE DISCUSSION FROM 1977

WILLIAM F BUCKLEY – FRIEDRICH HAYEK – GEORGE ROCHE – A SOCIAL JUSTICE DISCUSSION FROM 1977

Machine generated transcript, expect errors
 
we have two guest George wrote is the president of Hillsdale College in
0:20
Michigan
0:20
a venerable small coeducational Institute
0:24
unabashedly devoted to the cultivation at the mall
0:28
imagination and the presumption in favour love the private sector
0:32
our second guest is the
0:36
senior libertarian economist in the world
0:40
nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek
0:45
mister IQ are very famous essay on the intellectuals and socialism
0:50
in which you want attempt I think quite successfully
0:54
to show why a socialism the soon nubile
0:58
for the end for the intellectuals on
1:01
what what is that this is the view was and you still are
1:05
defended you know certainly guess Pilates
1:10
very into listings fell into a link between apes of saddam
1:16
ideas which government’s thinking into the
1:19
eighteens essentially he said Pierre we can
1:23
that we can make everything to our pleasure
1:26
that we can decide in social institutions
1:30
in there working now
1:33
that is basically mistake social institutions
1:39
have never been designed and didn’t do much more than we knew
1:44
if grown-up consists of selection
1:48
of the successful some people frequently no
1:51
late success that applies to the market the market
1:56
is the I was going to say most ingenious
2:01
ingenious without having been decent
2:04
installment which enables us to utilize knowledge which is distributed
2:10
monk I’m home for thousands of people it’s an
2:13
about tation to posing for circumstance which never moves
2:17
the nobody epic and new as a whole the present crisis
2:22
formed on the market 10 the individual
2:25
what to do and what not to do into social interests 90 to understand this
2:30
you have to know economics
2:31
needs person we mansions
2:35
also distribution of income is determined by somebody deliberately did
2:41
me it seems that if this is
2:44
civic responsibility of a particular guide says
2:47
evidently dumb Birmingham trust effectiveness is not being done
2:51
unjustly because we achieve all that we do achieve
2:54
by having come to agree to pay is sort of game
3:00
in which game of the market is a liking to call it
3:05
in which because we’re utilizing
3:08
more information more facts in anybody know the outcome
3:12
for particular individual is necessarily unpredictable
3:15
9 outcome which is I’m predictable in I’m designed
3:19
any public and be just just that little worse outcome of a game
3:24
both trials can be just game but people who sent this
3:29
and the people who mentioned all could be possible
3:32
to design also use to arrange this
3:36
except to government to do this in the men looted distribution
3:41
his just this is literally
3:44
impossible because able to the choir that
3:48
all this widely dispersed information about particular facts in particular
3:53
circumstance
3:54
people would give can be used in control
3:58
by simple food good one why couldn’t I could be
4:02
fact why couldn’t the rule up the Justice make a
4:06
come at the and on the process by
4:10
taking from someone who has more than he needs
4:14
for the purposes that is fine somebody who has less than the
4:18
specific names part of his income is going to be taking flame there’s no
4:22
inducement for him to do their particular thing
4:24
if I knew that the fed with Ingrid fetch a very high price
4:28
to for without being taken from and I can do something much more pleasant for
4:33
further saying come without paying any income tax
4:35
I’m going to do with not going to do what most beneficial to society
4:39
where but in point of fact them a great many people
4:42
who are taxed at the two-third to rate continue to be very productive
4:47
all well I thought well there’s poop deck before think could
4:51
me odd let’s say they are less productive than they could be
4:55
but how do you answer the question that the demands of justice
4:59
or perhaps approved have to
5:03
you have permitted in absolute distribution to the proceedings
5:08
to the mall i’m new possible who
5:11
of just distribution in the system was the distributions not
5:15
deliberately is the result of people bringing in about
5:19
mean justice is simply beautiful
5:23
individual action I can be just Wellcome Trust
5:27
towards my fellow man but the conception
5:30
of social justice to expect from an
5:33
impose more pushups which nobody can control
5:36
to bring about a just to sell is not only in
5:40
meaningless conception it’s completely impossible
5:44
see everybody talks about social justice but if you
5:47
press people to explain to you what do you mean by social justice ultimately
5:51
pics except there’s just nobody knows I
5:55
telling you because they’ve been playing for the past 20 years Afghan people
5:58
what really are you principles social justice
6:03
is that your notion that a society
6:07
or not to undertake redistribution
6:10
because it cannot to find blasters or
6:14
because it has no legitimate
6:17
of our to engage in the activities
6:21
using both as a matter fact it occurs to me that
6:24
such a thing as social justice becomes almost a contradiction in terms because
6:28
if you examine the philosophical roots
6:30
that produced the modern egalitarianism
6:33
ideal those roots contain all
6:37
sorts of departures from the idea
6:40
that it is possible to establish a difference between right and wrong
6:43
they deny the operational moral framework and ultimately come to the
6:48
utilitarian goal at
6:49
all ideas and all their lives are reconsidered essentially on their own
6:53
merits
6:53
and the same people who have said that and are busy then undercutting
6:58
a the more traditional values in western civilization
7:02
are the same people who then go on and prayed about social justice
7:05
as though somehow the assignment numbers
7:09
love quantification will tell us something about justice and
7:13
infected wanna the so I don’t think that you can
7:16
define social justice you can define social injustice you can produce a
7:20
socially unjust situation
7:21
what to do so you what you’ve really done is undercut individual morality and
7:27
and the opportunity to to make those choices that have genuine moral compass
7:31
suppose you have a state
7:34
in which some X
7:37
green conditions exist in one area the state
7:42
fifty dollars a year is spent towards the education
7:46
up a child in the other and the state a thousand dollars
7:50
the spent towards the education are
7:53
other child I is
7:57
is the concept blast
8:00
is in vocal in the society that says
8:05
we must do what we can
8:09
to diminish that antibodies
8:13
we must pay more
8:16
for the education %uh the child down
8:20
in the southern region even if it means diminishing the ground
8:24
to the child in the obviously is is this
8:27
is is this as thus far described
8:32
irregardless of at hint at quotes justice
8:36
no morality is a difference between right and wrong
8:39
in concrete specific decisions and transactions between and among
8:44
individuals when this is elevated to a social plane hit
8:47
it ceases to have any particular recognizable content as justice
8:51
but but but is is that
8:55
terminal logically subjective if
8:58
and individual decides to give soccer to the hon
9:02
a hungry person are why is that
9:06
different from 10 individuals giving
9:10
sucka 10 hungry people privately and you don’t know nor even if the use the
9:15
instrumentality
9:16
above the crowd because at that point I become the soccer for them because it
9:21
quite
9:21
taxes that the company there’s it’s fine for you to decide to be charitable it is
9:26
not
9:26
fine for you to be charitable with my resources as opposed to yours
9:30
in fact is no charity connected with them well
9:34
this really depends on the rules to society than that wants raises the
9:39
question notices I’m great with your essay
9:42
that says the most of his and mean
9:45
is the fact that the people of oklahoma and two people from New York find it
9:50
convenient to have a common system of law whose
9:54
a justification with two people were got home and amounted to people of New York
9:59
homes of their pocket
10:00
persons to people who claim movement mean it’s a question which he
10:04
on through a high-speed rikki there’s nothing like a model agreement
10:09
which key create such in fact it’s nearly perfect will
10:13
where that use to power ones be for common state that this apollo
10:17
it is accepted as legitimate that this power
10:21
takes out of pocket from the French at home for a bit
10:24
now does that mean that if you have a world government we can
10:29
taxi Americans to all Americans to eighty percent of their incomes and also
10:33
maintains a Chinese
10:35
in that the same principle applied the once even international government they
10:40
were busy international Powell
10:41
live two planes and is perfectly legitimate to certain political
10:45
government
10:46
decides to text all Americans eighty percent of the income
10:50
handed over Chinese and pizza Chinese whatever way we may think about
10:55
desirable future you walls of moles a
11:00
no doubt to existing rules with most small plus the fat
11:04
and I would maintain that in fact
11:08
when today they will the politics
11:11
United States a heavily taxed in favor of the
11:15
put a pulse this is not
11:18
the result of pinnae mole agreement majority of the american people
11:23
but soon with a flick that whatever party is in power
11:27
needs to do to Oklahoma and pays for the roots of Oklahoma
11:31
it’s a cost a few people to win few parts nothing else
11:35
well at but the motivations
11:38
I love the people who past those rules
11:43
are not necessarily the motivations of people who
11:48
are propelled by demagogic pressure
11:52
on you not you not to mind disinterested
11:56
generosity exercise the legislature it’s entirely different map is International
12:01
Journal said
12:02
germans want nothing action but to claim with the
12:06
is consensus of the American people
12:09
which also license legislature to
12:13
bring about a certain redistribution of income using
12:16
track never did not poop American people have never
12:19
calls principles they ought to be applied this
12:23
all they are asked her all the out told this
12:27
in fact the the public input Democratic Party
12:31
promises you such-and-such will be in pole only
12:34
if it buys to support a few people in oklahoma and since you know that you we
12:39
get from
12:39
Democratic Party when you what to expect for me you vote for me
12:43
and to take into account the necessity the role with the democratic party gets
12:48
into power
12:49
it has to pay special benefits people will promote with what
12:52
comes to
12:55
lives am a business to jeff greenfield
12:58
East or is your skepticism about social justice
13:01
justice confined to the spear economics
13:05
or you skeptical about any ability to define it classical demand is
13:11
it’s a state hope to played all people is
13:14
equally in spite of the fact that they have a happy
13:18
unequal you can deduce from this
13:22
there who it because their people hot I’m equal
13:25
he ought to t2 unequally well to make them unequal
13:28
and that what social just three months to it’s at the mountain
13:32
that the state should 3 to different people differently in all took place in
13:37
the same position
13:38
you who of equal treatment applies
13:42
ending close things the state has to do in any case
13:46
but to make making people equal
13:50
goof governmental policy would force government to keep people guessing I’m
13:54
equally
13:55
me
13:57
hun

Give a listen to my Podcast! You will be glad you did.

Leave a Reply