Is it possible to stand for a free economy without extrapolating that to a destruction of family, moral and religious values? I don't know much about Hayek beyond his economic theories. I also always wonder about the definition of the term 'populist'. Ninety percent of the time it's used to describe something undesirable. Does all populism lead to totalitarianism?
As we've seen with economic liberalism, an absolute free market is not something to be desired as it acts as corrosive across all facets of society. There must always be limiting factors. A society without guardrails will implode.
As for populism, that's more of a reaction, less of a coherent political way forward nor does it springboard us into totalitarianism.
Given that we are living under a totalitarian liberal state as it is, populism isn't something to be feared but it is a signal to understand.
Your last paragraph is right on but I would be interested to know what parts seem totalitarian? I get that we have lost a great deal of control as citizens. But if we're totalitarian, what's the adjective for, say, N. Korea? Also not sure what an 'absolute free market' means in your terms. Why is it corrosive? Sorry, just trying to understand nuances here...
Liberalism, both economic and cultural, is a corrosive ideology.
As America grows ever more diverse—racially, ethnically, religiously, and culturally - tribal identities push and pull against each other, and undermine the unity that allows for the common good to flourish.
The free market has allowed for mass immigration with cheap labor as the excuse, and also allowed for American industries and jobs to be shipped overseas.
History shows that multiethnic/multicultural nations require totalitarian governments to hold everything together, or the entire project fails.
This is how liberalism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
Is it possible to stand for a free economy without extrapolating that to a destruction of family, moral and religious values? I don't know much about Hayek beyond his economic theories. I also always wonder about the definition of the term 'populist'. Ninety percent of the time it's used to describe something undesirable. Does all populism lead to totalitarianism?
As we've seen with economic liberalism, an absolute free market is not something to be desired as it acts as corrosive across all facets of society. There must always be limiting factors. A society without guardrails will implode.
As for populism, that's more of a reaction, less of a coherent political way forward nor does it springboard us into totalitarianism.
Given that we are living under a totalitarian liberal state as it is, populism isn't something to be feared but it is a signal to understand.
Your last paragraph is right on but I would be interested to know what parts seem totalitarian? I get that we have lost a great deal of control as citizens. But if we're totalitarian, what's the adjective for, say, N. Korea? Also not sure what an 'absolute free market' means in your terms. Why is it corrosive? Sorry, just trying to understand nuances here...
Liberalism, both economic and cultural, is a corrosive ideology.
As America grows ever more diverse—racially, ethnically, religiously, and culturally - tribal identities push and pull against each other, and undermine the unity that allows for the common good to flourish.
The free market has allowed for mass immigration with cheap labor as the excuse, and also allowed for American industries and jobs to be shipped overseas.
History shows that multiethnic/multicultural nations require totalitarian governments to hold everything together, or the entire project fails.
This is how liberalism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.