NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you agree or disagree with Hayek's notion of the fatal conceit? Can a society not be centrally planned and ignore tradition?

bump

I think that everyone, like me, is just to lazy to google it.
Especially since I am eating lo mein with pork, carrying on an argument over the uselessness of evolution, and writing adverts for home defense systems right now.

I think that everyone, like me, is just to lazy to google it.
Especially since I am eating lo mein with pork, carrying on an argument over the uselessness of evolution, and writing adverts for home defense systems right now.
I second that...except replace eating with getting high...

I second that...except replace eating with getting high...
How does one get high on Pork Lo Mein, might I ask?
You kids will smoke anything these days.

Basicially it states that one cannot centrally plan a society because it is the result of spontaneous order (Something like language that is the result of human action but not of human design).

How does one get high on Pork Lo Mein, might I ask?.
if you don't know I am not going to tell you......;)


okay so I am too lazy to google it also, please elaborate so I can reply.

Do you agree or disagree with Hayek's notion of the fatal conceit? Can a society not be centrally planned and ignore tradition?
Firstly, there is considerable question concerning just how much of "The Fatal Conceit" was actually written by Hayek and how much was the product of his editor, W.W. Bartley.

Secondly, to ignore any significant portion of society/culture when making significant changes will almost always torpedo those changes. Just ask anyone who has tried to establish a totally secular government in a state with a significant number of religionists.

Secondly, to ignore any significant portion of society/culture when making significant changes will almost always torpedo those changes. Just ask anyone who has tried to establish a totally secular government in a state with a significant number of religionists.
Isn't that an example of how central planning of everything doesn't work?

Firstly, there is considerable question concerning just how much of "The Fatal Conceit" was actually written by Hayek and how much was the product of his editor, W.W. Bartley.
Yes, I have heard about that. Hayek fell ill before he could complete it.

Secondly, to ignore any significant portion of society/culture when making significant changes will almost always torpedo those changes. Just ask anyone who has tried to establish a totally secular government in a state with a significant number of religionists.
It takes time to accept certain change. Change all at once usually doesn't work as well as gradual change. People can adjust better with gradual reform.

Isn't that an example of how central planning of everything doesn't work?
Not necessarily. It's an example of how central planning of things won't work if you don't take things like tradition, religion, etc. into account. It's possible to plan using those things as backdrop, but not possible to plan without factoring them in.

"Spontaneous self-organization" is a scientific principle which originated with chemistry and which now has a fairly wide acceptance in a number of fields, such as biology, ecology, sociology, economics, etc. Sometimes the concept makes the leap to disciplines like economics, sometimes not. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on its applicability to economics, which is where Hyaek tries to apply it.

Basically, the concept states that in any complex system ( such as an economy, to follow through with the example ), adding more energy ( in whatever form that might take ... say, money ) will raise the system's instability until it reaches a "bifurcation point of instability," at which time it becomes impossible to predict what will happen because of the application of chaos theory. The system will reform at a higher level of organization, but there is no way to predict the features or nature of that organization.

This is why Hyaek stated that planning in complex systems was socialism's "fatal flaw." As I indicated above, the jury on this one is still out, IMHO. :)

Not necessarily. It's an example of how central planning of things won't work if you don't take things like tradition, religion, etc. into account. It's possible to plan using those things as backdrop, but not possible to plan without factoring them in.

"Spontaneous self-organization" is a scientific principle which originated with chemistry and which now has a fairly wide acceptance in a number of fields, such as biology, ecology, sociology, economics, etc. Sometimes the concept makes the leap to disciplines like economics, sometimes not. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on its applicability to economics, which is where Hyaek tries to apply it.

Basically, the concept states that in any complex system ( such as an economy, to follow through with the example ), adding more energy ( in whatever form that might take ... say, money ) will raise the system's instability until it reaches a "bifurcation point of instability," at which time it becomes impossible to predict what will happen because of the application of chaos theory. The system will reform at a higher level of organization, but there is no way to predict the features or nature of that organization.

This is why Hyaek stated that planning in complex systems was socialism's "fatal flaw." As I indicated above, the jury on this one is still out, IMHO. :)
To Austrian school economists (like Hayek) the jury came back long ago, and Hayek's side won. To other economists that dang jury might as well be written off as missing in action the latest century. The only dream of getting one step closer to settling anything is to set up a functional anarchocapitalist society. Or if you consider government a part of the self organising society (as I think Hayek did) call the jury dead. This is one example that economic science can't produce results.

To Austrian school economists (like Hayek) the jury came back long ago, and Hayek's side won. To other economists that dang jury might as well be written off as missing in action the latest century. The only dream of getting one step closer to settling anything is to set up a functional anarchocapitalist society. Or if you consider government a part of the self organising society (as I think Hayek did) call the jury dead. This is one example that economic science can't produce results.
ROFL! Which may go a long way toward explaining why some call economics "the dismal science." :D

I've seen people try to apply "beautiful theories" from physics, chemistry, biology and other "hard science" disciplines to social "sciences" before. Once in a great while, they truly do seem to apply and are quite useful. More often, they step on their own petard, fall flat on their faces, and deeply embarass those who suggested the applicability in the first place. :D