Hayek’s Last Gleaming

"Why I Am Not A Conservative" essay comes under examination.

By

In what may be one of the most brazenly nerdy Remnant episodes ever recorded (which is really saying a lot) Duke University’s Bruce Caldwell joins the program to discuss the life and work of Friedrich Hayek. Dr. Caldwell, the pope of Hayekian geekdom, recently published the first installment of a two volume biography of the famed economist. Guided by Jonah’s gleeful prompting, he explores how Hayek rose to international prominence, what he was like as a man, and how we should view his great works today. If you woke up feeling all Austrian this morning, it’s a must listen.

Show Notes:

– Dr. Caldwell’s page at Duke

– Dr. Caldwell’s new book, Hayek: A Life, 1899–1950 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (19)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ebquack

    Hey Jonah, I was driving when I listened to this. To spare me the need to listen through the podcast again, what was the reading priority list of Hayek’s writings you gave?

    Thank you in advance,

    Eric

    Collapse
  2. Peter Wilson

    Jonah! I agree with the point you made about prophesy generally, but I think you are wrong in particular about your namesake Jonah (36 minutes ish). In the Book of Jonah, Jonah says, "Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown" (3:4). There's nothing in Jonah's statement that suggests that there was something that people of Nineveh could do to prevent this. One interpretation of why Jonah is angry in the book of Jonah after Nineveh repents is because their repentance and God's subsequent change of mind made Jonah into a liar.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This was just what I needed. I can’t believe you beat Russ Roberts to this.

    Was Hayek perhaps the true heir to Edmund Burke? To your point at the very end before the sign-off: in the tradition of Burke, conservatives do believe in progress - at least that of the gradual improvement over many years - and seek to conserve that which has gone well/has been tried and succeeded/is good from the past (the past being slow changes over time and trial and error, with some successes). Therefore, conservatism properly understood is, in fact, preserving liberalism against the forces of progressivism/Marxism. Liberalism was perhaps new and revolutionary when it was introduced but it was one of mankind’s few experiments that succeeded and therefore Burkean conservatives seek to preserve it, especially in light of these newer revolutionary ideologies that seek to uproot it entirely.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    Suggested title for a review of Dr. Caldwell's new book -

    𝘓'𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘬, 𝘓'𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘬: 𝘈 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    OK Steele

    Maybe it’s because I read it as the Trump Presidency wound to a close but I thought that The Road to Serfdom was pretty measured. Described pretty convincingly what happened in Germany and when you look at how the last couple years of Trump’s presidency went, rooting out all non loyalists, attempting to stay in power by using pure political force, the work seemed even more pertinent. If the president had less power, including the imagined legislative power now attached to role, it would’ve been way harder to attempt the things Trump did. And when people say we were very close to a legitimate catastrophe I immediately think, “yes clearly Hayak was right”

    I also think Putin is a prime example of the same idea when you look at how he’s turned a democratic Russian regime into an authoritarian one.

    And there 3rd chapter also explains all of the places and ways in which governments can and should intervene in economic activity, and I think that’s an important caveat that people really don’t comment on.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      Yeah, I read it in college back in The Before Times, and it always seemed pretty apt in light of the Soviet Union and Communist China and other regimes that followed a path to serfdom.

      Collapse
  6. Joe1776

    Awesome podcast. I double majored in philosophy and political science before law school. But I have to admit I am much more a philosopher than a political scientist. I am especially interested in meta-ethics and I think that field is growing - not because of me but because it is inevitable. When you say we had to fight for the view that murder is wrong, I have to say no. No one believes that. Not atheists that believe in blind evolution nor religious people that think there is more than blind evolution. Lions did not have to "fight for" the idea that a new male lion can kill the offspring of an different male lion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nraZzGD8BmM

    Whereas the philosophers of the early 20th century wanted to punt on what is actually moral or not and how would we know? Today people no longer punt that question. And it shouldn't be punted. That is the question of interest. What is morality and how do we possibly learn what it is. Those are the questions that people are asking today. The questions of politics often quickly boil down to this. And so I believe the battles fought today are much more philosophical than political.

    Collapse
  7. MaryJane

    I loved this episode so much. Thank you. I want to suggest a primer for those who would like bite sized philosophy chunks of some of the economists mentioned. It's called 'Freedom & Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate.' It may even inspire folks to read the entirety of Edmund Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France'!

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    J. Eric

    Very interesting! Thank you

    Collapse
  9. Philebus

    I've recently read "The Revolt of the Masses" / Jose Ortega y Gasset (popular at the time but rather obscure now). Interesting to hear of Hayek's thoughts on the purpose of the Mont Pelerin Society. I'm not far enough removed from my reading of Ortega to have formed lasting opinions of his work, and do need to read more. That said, there is this modern aspect of society where everyone becomes an 'elite' personality; dismissive of all things you don't actually know or understand - After 5 minutes, the common man is an expert - an empty drum that makes a good deal of noise, but with not much tonality.

    Hayek has been passed for a long time now, but it would be interesting to hear his thoughts Jose Ortega and modern times.

    Collapse
  10. Randall Briggs

    I was on the Mises Institute's mailing list for a good while. I got tired of the articles justifying the Confederacy, so I unsubscribed. You can't defend the Confederacy without at least minimizing the wrong of chattel slavery.

    Collapse
    1. Photo of Jonah Goldbergcircle-angle-nib
      Jonah Goldberg vertical-nib Author

      Exactly. There was (and remains) a very creepy subculture that thinks libertarianism and federalism provide cover for slavery and Jim Crow. I get the argument that "Lincoln was a tyrant" (even though I obviously disagree), but that premise got melded onto a lot of garbage.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        Lincoln made some questionable procedural and constitutional moves. But even though I would say many people are too quick to override those norms, it was truly the sort of moral issue that should override those concerns.

        I am not aware of how to draw a clear line of when that is justified. But here we know it when we see it and there is no need to relitigate the issue.

        Collapse
        1. Randall Briggs

          I accept Lincoln's argument that he had war powers and that he was not going to let the Union be destroyed, rendering the Constitution moot, in order to save one clause (writ of habeas corpus, IRRC) of it. There has only been one truly existential threat to the United States, and he was facing it.

          Collapse
Load More