Diagram Of Organizational Behaviour

Liberal Dictatorship? Liberalism without democracy?

For a number of people reading Hayek comes down to a small quote taken out of context by anti-liberal books and blogs. It can be found in this form: [better] a "liberal dictatorship to a lack of liberalism in a democratic government. "A double

range is attributed to that quote.

First a general statement is better and the market dictatorship than democracy.

And then, especially because it was made to a Chilean newspaper right under the Pinochet dictatorship, it would mean that Hayek would support Pinochet.

Sometimes the whole is wrapped in a beautiful story, with Hayek and Friedman's Machiavellian advisers caudillo.

Both the general and specific interpretation is wrong.


I) No support for Pinochet

First interpret the quote as support for Pinochet collapses if one reads verbatim seriously what Hayek said.

The exact quote, with which accompanies it, is " I would say that, as institutions for the long term, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a need for a transitional period. Sometimes it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, one form or another of dictatorial power. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictator rather than a democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression is that [...] in Chile, for example, we will the transition from a dictatorial government to a Liberal government. ( interview with the Chilean daily newspaper''[[El Mercurio ]]'', April 12, 1981, according to the documentation Institute Hayek)

If Hayek states that the Chilean regime will change from dictatorship to liberal, it is that Pinochet and his regime were not a liberal. qed

be added only if it is true that the Pinochet regime is a dictatorship that the general has violated the law for themselves in power, we can not equate the President Allende in paragon of democracy. One governed by short-circuiting Parliament, which held the majority and demanded his dismissal. Allende's party, he has finally shown generally respectful of the letter of the constitution except in his mind, never had an absolute majority and behaved in a more than unpleasant with his opposition in his last months.

It is therefore premature to equate the dictator Pinochet and Liberal Democrat anti-liberal in Allende.

In any case it is wrong to understand this quote as endorsing Pinochet when Hayek hopes for a liberal evolution of the dictatorial regime of the latter.


II) No undemocratic political theory

Then the general interpretation of the famous quote as a rejection of democracy in favor of the market is false because Hayek does not limit the liberalism to which it refers solely to economic liberalism.

Recall that for the anti-liberal, Hayek would oppose democracy to economic liberalism. Yet never in his quotation, whether the original or an altered version, Hayek does not limit liberalism to economic liberalism. What is

Hayek is the confusion, frequent, between notions of liberalism and democracy.

Uncertainties on the concept of democracy

Today everyone is a Democrat. The price of this unanimity is considerable uncertainty about the definition of that concept.

Is it the law of the majority, the general consensus of an egalitarian movement, the rule of law, a division mode of passion, a realistic system of peaceful transition to power ? (You can see this old article which collects quotes about democracy and shows the variety of approaches.)

Democracy is confused with related ideas, foremost among which is liberalism.

Democracy should be defined primarily as a mode of appointment of governors by the method of universal suffrage. The government of the people, by the people and for the people (quote from Lincoln found in the French Constitution). If this system is desirable, it is not sufficient because the majority may want one badly, at the expense of minorities.

Democracy can fail and elsewhere Hayek comes precisely from a country where the failure of democracy has had serious consequences. He acquired British citizenship in 1938, refusing the Anschluss.

Confusion between democracy and liberalism

liberalism itself must be understood against the powers-limiting and other mechanisms of power: the press, the market, the rule of law etc..

But liberalism is not enough to make a government, we must still popular support, legitimacy, these mechanisms. Democracy is now the regime is perceived as more legitimate when they are not alone and it is also legitimate per se in that it integrates the whole body politic in the electoral process.

is why it is necessary to combine democratic ideas and liberal.

And what we usually call democracy is precisely the liberal democracy, a combination of liberal and democratic ideas. But it is conceivable that other combinations to do.

Democracy opposes the dictatorship, liberalism is opposed to absolutism.


victim of its success, the combination has become confusing. This is such between the two concepts that defended many proponents of democracy is really the liberal democracy which has been substantially emptied.

For example, it is fashionable now to define democracy as pluralism or pluralism has precisely nothing to do with pure democracy, which is the government of the people. Pluralism is, like liberalism, a complement of democracy. To these supporters, one is tempted to ask whether they prefer a democracy without pluralism or pluralism without democracy ...

should therefore restore meaning to words and to distinguish between ideas. Hayek and show us that liberalism is not democracy, it is possible to conceive of one without the other and the order.

The same typology as Peter ... Rosanvallon

For those who are unconvinced, indicate that the typology presented here, distinguishing between democratic and liberal ideas commonly confused, of course, is not unique to Hayek. It's also found in Pierre Rosanvallon, which does not appear to be a libertarian. In his book

Democracy Still, the author presents a liberal regime without democracy and without a democratic liberalism.

These respective regimes of Louis-Philippe and Napoleon III.

And indeed better than Louis Philippe-Napoleon III.


III) The need for timely dictatorship

Hayek also said black and white that it is against the dictatorship except when necessary as a transitional measure.

But such a statement is absolutely clear. Dictatorship, as defined in the Roman institution of absolute power but characterized by its legality, legitimacy and its temporary nature (read among typology Aron) is necessary for any diet.

The 5th Republic itself provides three modes of dictatorship: the full powers of Article 16, the state of emergency and martial law.

If politics is the art of the lesser evil and calming of passions, sometimes the demagogues are ready to take the place of policy. Sometimes the social body and dissolve the civil war approach. He must then save liberal democracy and peace, and dictatorship is necessary.

This is particularly true of historical experience that marked Hayek: the overthrow of the Weimar Republic by the Nazis. It would have been better than the old elites and the Democrats maintain the regime by force rather than let the demagogues, some of their democratic legitimacy.

Everyone in their right mind will agree with this statement ... unless it is Hayek who pronounces ...

Conclusion


What is remarkable with this joke of Hayek, is that it loses its offensiveness if you appreciate a little rigor content.

Democracy is not an abstraction of the more abstract that defines it as an absolute good, is a method of appointment of governors by the people who can fail.

The dictatorship is not that illegal and illegitimate exercise of power is still the possibility that reserves any plan to increase its powers in exceptional circumstances to protect the country from civil war.

Genital Covering In Movies

Why young people do not get a job?

Why young people do not get a job?

Where it is claimed that Nicolas Sarkozy is not for nothing (to increase my draw as the newspapers?)

Two reasons to question the title:

1) The lack of economy by youth
2) Ignorance of the economy by the old.

And I'm not talking about the discipline of social sciences but human interaction and exchange of the production.

Begin.

1) Young people do not understand the economy

Far be it from me to play in the national education demagogic anti Yet the problem lies partly in our education system.

Both the content of education as the mode of teaching have perverse effects.

Content - The content of teaching abstract, is largely irrelevant to the future professional life. It would be curious to know what proportion of workers uses his knowledge acquired in school for his business? Definitely a weak hand.

It is worthwhile to learn the history, Latin, and organic chemistry. But these teachings have no practical purpose. And because of their number, they take up more teaching manuals. (Crowding)

It is true that students, in keeping with the times, have little regard for the teaching manuals.

It is especially true that the real purpose of the content of teaching is not to teach but to select. Should we be satisfied with this hypocrisy?

Thus the education system appears to us already separated from the production system, which allows me to come to the second part the problem, and most important mode of teaching.

Teaching methods - After all these years on the benches of the school, the student has assimilated the logic. However he does not know that the world of work. Now the two worlds obey very different rules.

At school he asked the student to be obedient (including and even especially in matters where it is said to express the spirit of criticism). Obedience and thus the right notes all the doors open. In the school system you are free to guide you as you would be subject to the notes permit. And to have these notes, we must dig. It's the same logic as pocket money. We must know how to balance between demand and be wise.

In the world of work, obedience is required but what is required above all is to be useful, productive. It must make money, at least to cover its own cost.

But the student, he does odd jobs or not, seems to remain a prisoner of the logic of the school: he believes the right to choose as he wishes his career path by paying for his effort.

But this is nothing. The worker become does not fit in a school but on the labor market. He can choose what he wants but what the market offers. The market offers just about everything, but not at the same price, the price depending on supply and demand and therefore the social value of employment required and the scarcity of talent needed.

In other words, the school serves is itself in the world of work we are in the service of others, because the cons-party compensation is made trravail, service record.

The lack of integration between education and the production system has resulted to nourish illusions. The working world is made of jobs that must satisfy both producers and consumers.

believe that society should provide everyone with the job he wants is unrealistic and selfish. In this sense - and only this - that Thatcher had told There Is No Such Thing as Society .


circuis Sealing between education and production also has the perverse effect of promoting the atomization of the individual. This fragmentation manifests itself in several ways. First, as noted above, it feeds the belief that the individual chooses the path that do not care regardless of what the company request.

other hand is the work that integrates the best in life. In this regard include the full truth of a formula that has unfortunately corrupted the Nazis: Arbeit macht frei. By cynicism or to deceive their victims, the Nazis placed this formula at the entrance to their camps. Nevertheless, this formula is widely their earlier testimony and in my opinion a profound truth.


A final word about the artificiality of the school process. It is remarkable that the knowledge acquired at school are actually very quickly forgotten. Proof is in the spelling of all these students who left school as soon forget what they were taught to abide by the conventions of the groups they follow.

Get rid of this idea of a school that would serve as a cocoon where you teach in a neutral knowledge to minds blank.

How about it?

Sometimes I think that a solution could be to establish a kind of stock trades with prices would be communicated to students. In other words, students would experience revenue for each position and may be decided according to its price, even choose to be poorly paid but what you want.

But such a solution is likely to generate envy and social hatred.

I will therefore advise the integration between education and work history to dispel the earlier tragic misunderstandings.


2) The old man did not understand anything more to the economy

This is an optimistic hypothesis to explain their behavior because there is an alternative:

- The old man did not understand anything about the economy,
- They are deliberately malicious and prevent youth from getting a job.

Rigidity at the entrance of the labor market

We know the song, for social protection systems is the increased cost of labor and ultimately unemployment

Since it is not possible to return without risk severe financial penalties are hiring less.


simple and rational arguments but not understood by many people. It is the theory of insider / outsider. Summa divisio of the new world of work is that which separates those who have jobs and are protected by the system against those who have no work and are very insecure and have to accept various types of jobs precarious for the privileges of the first category.

If the PAYG system (sending Petainist way) is telling: not only does it ever increasing burdens on workers and thus increases the cost of labor and ultimately thwart the hiring of youth but in addition there is a wealth transfer from young to old. Doubling antisocial.


Negation productivity differences

Young people are less productive in that they are not trained and do not know the routines and generate logically less production. It should be added to what we lose in the short-term productivity of their trainers.


This is true in areas of high specialization.


In addition the employer takes a risk by hiring a new person as it may be incompetent and represent a dead weight now.


The new worker is producing less gold production that once sold gives revenues to the company and pay salaries. As a result it is illusory to believe that the new entrant should be paid like all other employees. To deny this is to prevent young people from getting to work.


Dominica de Villepin when he was prime minister, briefly introduced the First Employment Contract (CPE) which facilitated the breakdown between employer and hired a young CPE. Interpreted as the precariousness of youth employment, such a measure was intended rather to facilitate the integration of young people in the world of work.

Many young people marched and obtained the withdrawal of the CPE. Two consequences: they have removed a tool that was made in their interest, and they paved the way for the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy at the right time by eliminating its principal rival on the right. Funny, no?


Ultimately precarious increases. It is only the inevitable consequence of a youth who goes to jobs that society does not demand and labor costs too high. Emergent


a bunch of insecure jobs. The biggest success is that of course: it gives the employer a worker unskilled, poorly paid, and exploitable without continuity, it offers the student a wave formation and the right to register an online resume that approximates the Holy Grail: CDI ... The internship allows most short-circuit any legislation to protect workers.


Who emissions too bad hugs. The protection of workers turned against the weakest among them.

In conclusion: what to do?

Teach better economy? Let down.

There are two things to do: 1 / integrate education and vocational training, 2 / flexible labor laws.