Liberty in F. Hayek (Master thesis)
Full metadata record
|dc.title||Η ελευθερία στον F. Hayek||el|
|dc.title||Liberty in F. Hayek||en|
|heal.secondaryTitle||θεωρία και πράξη||el|
|heal.secondaryTitle||theory and praxis||en|
|heal.recordProvider||Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Φιλοσοφίας Παιδαγωγικής και Ψυχολογίας||el|
|heal.bibliographicCitation||Βιβλιογραφία: σ. 92-96||el|
|heal.abstract||In my thesis I am presenting and analyzing Friedrich August Hayek’s view on liberty as it unfolds over the decades of his career as a renowned professor, author and keen supporter of neoliberalism. In the first chapter, I keep focusing on main parts of his praxeology and on the way his individualistic concept works. As Hayek struggles in a bipolar world, his main concern is to present no other alternative for an individual to be free than to abstain from all acts pertaining to collectivism which is portrayed as a synonym for coercion. Coercive powers are being applied by the government or even by an individual against another. In any case, coercion discontinues any kind of development and discourages any creative forces limiting the spectrum of available options. Hayek’s consecutive arguments can hardly stand alone. As long as his “Great Society” is based on the market demand and as long as the latter means absence of control of any kind, there is no place for social policy and any proposal for relief measures is just a reminiscent of the past. Though we can make progress through a trial and error method, there always remains the case that common people are assigned more responsibilities than they can bear. Hayek’s figurative bridge from the Neolithic Age man, swapping his artifact for something valuable, to modern commerce, may not be a figment of the imagination but nowadays the stakes are higher, and this is something that does not elude him. However, his paramount concern is to protect the capitalistic climax. This climax is certainly driven by a ubiquitous and omnipotent, spontaneous order which, according to Hayek, is not only a self-correcting mechanism but something individuals should hope for. A highly questionable free market’s emerging infallibility must seriously be addressed by the free individual as without its consent the whole system cannot function. As civilization grows along with urban metropolitan areas, new plans must be implemented by a society comprising semi or totally isolated individuals, with or without their tacit agreement and this is one of my primary concerns in the second chapter. Living standards are often not being decided by a free individual for its benefit but are only something that can evaluate Hayek’s “Great Society” function. The same path has to be followed by education systems and by the labor market as well. I will also point out how Hayek treated the majority presupposition and the fact that he actively supported authoritarian regimes, only because he thought the political environment to be appropriate for a functional free market. Though Hayek presents a lifelong detailed charter for his spontaneous order condemning administrative and human intervention in general, personal rights are usually found in an unstable position and in need of protection.||en|
|heal.academicPublisher||Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Φιλοσοφική Σχολή. Τμήμα Φιλοσοφίας Παιδαγωγικής και Ψυχολογίας||el|
|Appears in Collections:||Διατριβές Μεταπτυχιακής Έρευνας (Masters)|
Files in This Item:
|Μ.Ε. ΡΙΝΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΣ 2018.pdf||1.23 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:This item is a favorite for 0 people.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.