Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The economist as an independent thinker, June 26, 2001
This is not a book for those looking for arguments to defend this or that ideological position. Frank Knight was far too critical and independent minded to ever be a defender of ideology. He had no interest in being a mere propagandist for free market economics or the mantras of classical liberalism. Although Knight regarded himself as an old-fashioned, nineteenth century liberal, he was well aware of the faults of classical liberalism, and he wrote about them with a candor and honesty sure to annoy the true believers of that creed. In fact, several of the essays in "Freedom and Reform" are critiques of what used to be staples of liberal belief: freedom, free markets, individualism, etc. Knight argues that, however important these ideas may be in the context of a free and democratic society, we would be lying to ourselves if we did not acknowledge their flaws. Individualism, Knight points out, is based on the "fundamental error" of taking the individual as given. What exists in society is not so much "individualism," but, more to the point, of what Knight calls "familism." "Some sort of family life, and far beyond that, some kind of wider primary-group and culture-group life, of a considerable degree of stability, must be taken as they are, as data," he insists. There is an important point here that has not been understood by liberal rationalists. Human beings are in fact social creatures, and if they are deprived of the social bonds of the family, they will search for a substitute elsewhere. Is this not one of the major causes behind multiculturalism and the group-fanaticism of the Left? Rootless individuals, deprived of familial bonds, look to race or gender or sexual orientation to provide what the family no longer can.Knight's basic approach is to supplement the rationalistic analysis typical of social science (especially economics) with a strong dose of common sense. Anyone with even a moderate sense of social reality knows that human beings are not the rational calculators or profit maximizers envisioned by economists. "It has become clear that people individually, and much more so in collectivities, are not very rational," Knight points out. "Man typically describes himself as an intelligent animal-Homo sapiens; but the main significance of this seems to be that man loves to compliment himself and considers this the highest compliment. 'Intelligence' is a word of numerous meanings, and with respect to all of them man is both a stupid animal and a romantic, preferring emotion to reason and fiction to truth." By keeping the limitations of human nature in mind at all times, Knight is able to see through the cant of the social sciences. He is perceptive not only in regards to libertarians and classical liberals, but even more so to radicals and left-liberals. His review essay on Dewey's "Liberalism and Social Action" is devastating. And his analysis of Marxism in the essay "Ethics and Economic Reform" is one of the best ever. The essential hypocrisy and nihilism of the Marxist creed has rarely been stated with such force and clarity. "For in plain factual appraisal, what [Marxians] are doing is more catastrophically evil than treason, or poisoning the wells, or other acts commonly placed at the head of the list of crimes," Knight declared. "The moralisation of destruction, and of combat with a view to destruction, goes with the kind of hero-worship that merges into devil worship. Such phenomena show that human nature has potentialities that are horrible." Knight wrote this in 1939, long before the atrocities of Stalin were well understood in the West. It is to be regretted that, even to this day, there are professors in American universities incapable of understanding the points Knight makes concerning the Marxist creed.
|
|
|
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great thoughts of a great thinker, March 6, 2001
For those reading this who may be unfamiliar with Mr. Knight, let me just say that he was responsible for creating the reputation of the "Chicago school" of economics, later popularized by Milton Friedman.For those who might be prejudiced against the perceived conservative bent of the Chicago school of thought, I will hasten to say that these essays offer very little comfort for the defenders of consevatism. Indeed they offer little comfort to the holder of seemingly any position. The great strengths of his thought were in his great perception of the popular lines of political/economic thought of the 20th century, and his unapologetic criticism of all of these ideas. This however, to me, is also the weakness of his thought. He seems to want to stand outside the fray, having no position of his own. This doesn't really get in the way of enjoying his essays though. I do have to admit that many of my thoughts about political ideas have been seriously challenged by this work and think that he brings a valuable contribution the debate about the future of American politics, even some 60 years after origianal publication
|
|
|
|
by Amartya Sen
by David E. Jones
by ARMEN A ALCHIAN
