© Nathalie Lees
The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism. It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write
The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded
was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion.
He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value".
In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
Comment: See also:
- Paleo Adapted: The 5,000-year-old iceman cometh with brown eyes and lactose intolerance
- Milk: The Poison
- Why Butter is Better
You have to ask the question as to why the article headline states that people drank milk 9000 years ago, yet the article itself states "However, more research is needed to verify that Neolithic people consumed milk products." Just another example of sensationalist headlines lying about the research results.