The Road: Western civilization's promotion of the individual. Greece/Rome/Christianity/Renaissance/De Tocqueville/Lord Acton/Adam Smith/Hume/Locke/Milton. The product of government built around it was the greatest economic and politically free people in the world, living in the most powerful countries in the world. But the times, they were a changin... In 1934, Great Britian was in awe of the central planning of Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan. They emulated them through the creation of a "National Planning Board". Shortly, all these countries decended into totalitarianism.

Page 6
...the socialism of which we speak is NOT a party matter, and the questions which we are discussing have little to do with the questions at dispute between political parties....some groups may want less socialism than others...some want socialism mainly in the interests of one group...the important point is that they are now in the democracies in some measure, ALL socialists.

Still going on today! The Republican party, in my lifetime: Bailouts of financial and automobile institutions, NCLB, Medicare D, ADA, and expansion of EITC.

Page 8
How many features of Hitler's system have not been recommended to us for imitation...? The number of dangerous mistakes we have made before and since the outbreak of war because we do not understand the opponent with whom we are faced is appalling. It seems almost as if we did not WANT to understand the development which has produced totalitarianism because such an understanding might destroy some of the dearest illusions to which we are determined to cling.

Hayek makes the point in 1944: the people of this generation don't know what a government devoid of Socialism looks like. The only way to get perspective is through people who were alive BEFORE WWI. That is also true in the USA. How much worse off are we today, when we have no older generation that can illuminate us? Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Obama. These are just the four most radical advancers of Socialism. One could with as much justification list ALL of the presidents of the past century.

Page 21
...we should make as much use as possible of the spontaneous forces of society, and resort as little as possible to coersion... There is, in particular, all the difference between deliberately creating a system within whcih competition will work as beneficially as possible, and passively acepting institutions as they are. Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire.

This is an interesting comment. Advocates for laissez faire count Hayek as a proponent of their view. My take on what he's getting at here: given the choice between a central authority dictating a laissez faire economic system and just accepting the economic system that is in place now, but simply allowing people and businesses the freedom to act as they wish, he prefers path #2. I think he believes path #2 ends up leading to laissez faire anyway, and sees some illogic in "forcing freedom". He brings up later on page 25 how there is a rather odd book out advocating "Planning for Freedom". Without saying as much, I think he's implying it is oxymoronic to force laissez faire.

Page 22
"No sensible person should have doubted that the crude rules in which the principles of economic policy of the 19th century were expressed were only a beginning... [Advancement] could come only as we gained increasing intellectual mastery of the forces of which we had to make use. There were many obvious tasks, such as OUR HANDLING OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM and the PREVENTION OF CONTROL OF MONOPOLY..."

A sentence like this raises my eyebrows. I don't think government needs to "handle" the monetary system at all. Recent chats about the Sherman act mean that others may be critical on his views of monopolies. We shall see how this area develops.

Where I disagree with Hayek so far:
He seems to have this belief those who who favor socialist policies are generally good folk, who end up reaping unintended consequences for their actions. Now, in this he might be referring to the common man. I certainly hope so. Because it ought to be apparent that the leaders of the Socialist movements are all about amassing dictatorial power via destroying individual freedom. Surely he knew of Gramsci, and Hitler was right in his face. I think our present circumstance may be different than his, or he was simply blind to a reality. I think a good amount of the common folk who clamor for socialism specifically desire to reap what that system will give them. There is no unintended consequence of totalitarianism for them. They want the government to be totalitarian - ruling the rich - extracting the fair share. Power to the people, comrade!