He is right in the sense that there can be a benevolent dictator like Cinncinnatus who famously was made dictator, saved Rome from an invading army, and retired back to his farm after 16 days. At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
That’s not what Hayek was talking about when he referenced a “democratic government lacking liberalism.” He was talking about Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, a socialist. Allende “sought to nationalize major industries, expand education, and improve the living standards of the working class.” No mention of mass enslavement. Although his replacement, Augusto Pinochet, who was supported by Hayek and the US, tortured and/or murdered tens of thousands.
The slavery thing is just an example. It’s a tyranny of the majority thing inherent to pure democracy. Hayek’s statement is right standing by itself. If he was alluding to a democratic society electing to be socialist when he was talking about a democratic government lacking liberalism, he is wrong. But that is to be expected from an economist. Most would rather give up democracy than capitalism.
That’s true. Does that mean you agree with Hayek?
He is right in the sense that there can be a benevolent dictator like Cinncinnatus who famously was made dictator, saved Rome from an invading army, and retired back to his farm after 16 days. At the same time a liberal democracy can vote that a minority ethnic group should all become slaves.
That’s not what Hayek was talking about when he referenced a “democratic government lacking liberalism.” He was talking about Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, a socialist. Allende “sought to nationalize major industries, expand education, and improve the living standards of the working class.” No mention of mass enslavement. Although his replacement, Augusto Pinochet, who was supported by Hayek and the US, tortured and/or murdered tens of thousands.
The slavery thing is just an example. It’s a tyranny of the majority thing inherent to pure democracy. Hayek’s statement is right standing by itself. If he was alluding to a democratic society electing to be socialist when he was talking about a democratic government lacking liberalism, he is wrong. But that is to be expected from an economist. Most would rather give up democracy than capitalism.