Hayek preferred a ‘liberal dictator’ over a ‘democratic government lacking liberalism’ if given the choice of systems for a transitionary period, Thoughts?
Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.
Friedrich Hayek, Interview in El Mercurio (1981)
Personally, I can understand the appeal of a dictatorship that defends minority groups, even for purely self-interested purposes, as well as the odiousness of a fair ‘democratic government’ that would reduce the same for even the most well reasoned and widely agreed upon purposes.
And if given an either-or choice I can see why Hayek would side with the dictatorship.
Would you like a “good process that gives bad outcomes” or a “bad process that gives good outcomes” is a VERY weird thing to ask a consequentialist. A process that gives good outcomes IS a good process. The hidden part of Hayek’s example is the timeframes and exit from a “transitional period”, and the difficult question of where to find this dictator and make the populace accept it well enough that the dictator feels safe being liberal in policy.
IMO, dictatorships are less likely to be or stay liberal than democratic governments. And this gives democratic governments a pretty big edge, especially over timeframes that span generations. But we don’t actually have many examples of dictatorships that last that long, or are liberal enough to qualify, nor of pure democracies, so I can’t say whether I’d prefer any specific dictatorship over some specific democracy-like example.
The means could be self justifying, the initial conditions could justify the means, the environment could justify the means, pure self-interest, etc… Having the ends, and only the ends, justify the means seems like a very unlikely position for the majority of the human population to hold, given the huge array of possibilities.
EDIT: And some may even say there are no justifications at all, the very idea itself fallacious, also for a variety of reasons such as:
Free will doesn’t truly exist, usually expressed technically as humans are like every other thermodynamic process in the universe, determinists, super-determinists, predestination theologians (with suitable religious phrasing), etc., belong to this category.
Justifications are always relative to some reference frame, moral relativists, cultural relativists, etc., belong to this category.
Words themselves lack meaning, lack sufficient rigour, lack some metaphysical quality, etc., to express this kind of relationship of ‘justifying means’, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, et. al, belong to this category.
Kind of. The means (and their consequences) are part of the ends. Most people trying to justify good ends through bad means forget that, and are actually pursuing bad ends. But if the sum of the results along the way is good, that’s good.
The phrase “ends justify the means” originally came from a context of ruling a state where it meant more like “beneficial longer term outcomes may matter more than whatever condemnation comes in the short term”. It was never about whether such acts are good or bad, just that from a wider point of view they might be judged worthwhile.
I don’t think the phrase originally came from any singular context or source. As it was a common enough view in all the major ancient civilizations, Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus, and the North China Plain.
It also seems unlikely to have originated in ruling a state generally since recent historiography is confident that certain professions, such as prostitution, likely predate any recorded organized state.
Hayek preferred a ‘liberal dictator’ over a ‘democratic government lacking liberalism’ if given the choice of systems for a transitionary period, Thoughts?
Personally, I can understand the appeal of a dictatorship that defends minority groups, even for purely self-interested purposes, as well as the odiousness of a fair ‘democratic government’ that would reduce the same for even the most well reasoned and widely agreed upon purposes.
And if given an either-or choice I can see why Hayek would side with the dictatorship.
Would you like a “good process that gives bad outcomes” or a “bad process that gives good outcomes” is a VERY weird thing to ask a consequentialist. A process that gives good outcomes IS a good process. The hidden part of Hayek’s example is the timeframes and exit from a “transitional period”, and the difficult question of where to find this dictator and make the populace accept it well enough that the dictator feels safe being liberal in policy.
IMO, dictatorships are less likely to be or stay liberal than democratic governments. And this gives democratic governments a pretty big edge, especially over timeframes that span generations. But we don’t actually have many examples of dictatorships that last that long, or are liberal enough to qualify, nor of pure democracies, so I can’t say whether I’d prefer any specific dictatorship over some specific democracy-like example.
This seems to be some variant of the ends justifying the means?
Most people here are consequentalists, and so would ask, what else could justify the means?
The means could be self justifying, the initial conditions could justify the means, the environment could justify the means, pure self-interest, etc… Having the ends, and only the ends, justify the means seems like a very unlikely position for the majority of the human population to hold, given the huge array of possibilities.
EDIT: And some may even say there are no justifications at all, the very idea itself fallacious, also for a variety of reasons such as:
Free will doesn’t truly exist, usually expressed technically as humans are like every other thermodynamic process in the universe, determinists, super-determinists, predestination theologians (with suitable religious phrasing), etc., belong to this category.
Justifications are always relative to some reference frame, moral relativists, cultural relativists, etc., belong to this category.
Words themselves lack meaning, lack sufficient rigour, lack some metaphysical quality, etc., to express this kind of relationship of ‘justifying means’, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, et. al, belong to this category.
and so on
Kind of. The means (and their consequences) are part of the ends. Most people trying to justify good ends through bad means forget that, and are actually pursuing bad ends. But if the sum of the results along the way is good, that’s good.
If you combine means and ends like that then it seems to be a tautological statement.
The phrase “ends justify the means” originally came from a context of ruling a state where it meant more like “beneficial longer term outcomes may matter more than whatever condemnation comes in the short term”. It was never about whether such acts are good or bad, just that from a wider point of view they might be judged worthwhile.
I don’t think the phrase originally came from any singular context or source. As it was a common enough view in all the major ancient civilizations, Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus, and the North China Plain.
It also seems unlikely to have originated in ruling a state generally since recent historiography is confident that certain professions, such as prostitution, likely predate any recorded organized state.