And you're painting with a wide brush to try and implicate Hayek in the rise of Hitler in order to discredit his economic theories.
No, I'm not, because that isn't the argument I presented. I noted that Hayek saw Hitler's economic regulation as the first sign of a tyranny, and that he extrapolated this regulation/tyranny cause/effect as interfering with the operation of a "natural" economy and noted, in his Road to Serfdom that any regulation was the first step to an inevitable loss of freedom.
He's missing that it's the cleanest because it arouses disgust and caution and thus is cleaned more often and regularly.
He's not missing anything. Even with constant seat scrubbing, the seat is generally less germ-free than, say, the faucet handles or the door knob. Why? The worst area to get germs is on the hands, where everyday contact spreads germs to our face and thus our bodies. Toilet seats remain (for most) well out of facial contact.
His point is more to the main area of disgust, in that few would hesitate to lick a doorknob, while few would deign to lick a toilet seat. The amygdalic disgust is irrational.
And ascribing the economic success of Germany after Hitler's election solely to Hitler's economic policies is basically crap logic. . . .
I discussed Hitler's econ policies elsewhere, and didn't bother to repeat them in an already over-long piece.
You haven't shown any cognitive dissonance here.
That's because I try to be aware of it. ;-)
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 11/2/13 02:38 (UTC)No, I'm not, because that isn't the argument I presented. I noted that Hayek saw Hitler's economic regulation as the first sign of a tyranny, and that he extrapolated this regulation/tyranny cause/effect as interfering with the operation of a "natural" economy and noted, in his Road to Serfdom that any regulation was the first step to an inevitable loss of freedom.
He's missing that it's the cleanest because it arouses disgust and caution and thus is cleaned more often and regularly.
He's not missing anything. Even with constant seat scrubbing, the seat is generally less germ-free than, say, the faucet handles or the door knob. Why? The worst area to get germs is on the hands, where everyday contact spreads germs to our face and thus our bodies. Toilet seats remain (for most) well out of facial contact.
His point is more to the main area of disgust, in that few would hesitate to lick a doorknob, while few would deign to lick a toilet seat. The amygdalic disgust is irrational.
And ascribing the economic success of Germany after Hitler's election solely to Hitler's economic policies is basically crap logic. . . .
I discussed Hitler's econ policies elsewhere, and didn't bother to repeat them in an already over-long piece.
You haven't shown any cognitive dissonance here.
That's because I try to be aware of it. ;-)