The Road to Serfdom - Chapter 3 - Individualism and Collectivism
Posted by LionelHutz 11 years, 8 months ago to Books
Hayek makes a distinction between the "central planning" advocated by Socialist the classical Liberal.
P40
"The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs. It is a dispute about what is the BEST way of so doing. The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating CONDITIONS under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that THEY can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires CENTRAL direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed "blueprint."
Notice that his view, the problem with Socialists is not that they try to centrally plan an economy - it is that they try to centrally plan at too detailed of a level.
In his mind, a different kind of government central planning is proper.
P41
It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning [Socialism] with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of COMPETITION as a means of coordinating human efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are.
So, in his view the proper role of government in an economy is using its force to maximize competition. Competition is the high ideal, because it allows individuals the best environment to execute their own economic plans...and in this area he criticizes the current situation.
P43
The systematic stuy of the forms of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently has been sadly neglected; and strong arguments can be advanced that serious shortcomings here, particularly with regard to the law of corporations and of patents, not only have made competition work much less effectively than it might have done but have even led to the destruction of competition in many spheres.
So - in his mind it is competition that must always be maintained and maximized. The government ought to interject its power into the enonomy to knock down a monopoly - if it is one that is preventing competition. Patents create government protected monopolies - and he views this as a shortcoming of the system.
He goes on to make the point that the central planners LOVE monopolies, because it's just easier to plan/control a single entity. Then, as the public starts to become offended that this company has become too powerful, it gives the central planners another card to play - nationalization.
P48
It is of the utmost importance to the argument of this book for the reader to keep in mind that the planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning AGAINST competition - the planning which is to be substituted FOR competition.
P40
"The dispute between the modern planners and their opponents is, therefore, not a dispute on whether we ought to choose intelligently between the various possible organizations of society; it is not a dispute on whether we ought to employ foresight and systematic thinking in planning our common affairs. It is a dispute about what is the BEST way of so doing. The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power should confine himself in general to creating CONDITIONS under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that THEY can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires CENTRAL direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed "blueprint."
Notice that his view, the problem with Socialists is not that they try to centrally plan an economy - it is that they try to centrally plan at too detailed of a level.
In his mind, a different kind of government central planning is proper.
P41
It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning [Socialism] with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of COMPETITION as a means of coordinating human efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are.
So, in his view the proper role of government in an economy is using its force to maximize competition. Competition is the high ideal, because it allows individuals the best environment to execute their own economic plans...and in this area he criticizes the current situation.
P43
The systematic stuy of the forms of legal institutions which will make the competitive system work efficiently has been sadly neglected; and strong arguments can be advanced that serious shortcomings here, particularly with regard to the law of corporations and of patents, not only have made competition work much less effectively than it might have done but have even led to the destruction of competition in many spheres.
So - in his mind it is competition that must always be maintained and maximized. The government ought to interject its power into the enonomy to knock down a monopoly - if it is one that is preventing competition. Patents create government protected monopolies - and he views this as a shortcoming of the system.
He goes on to make the point that the central planners LOVE monopolies, because it's just easier to plan/control a single entity. Then, as the public starts to become offended that this company has become too powerful, it gives the central planners another card to play - nationalization.
P48
It is of the utmost importance to the argument of this book for the reader to keep in mind that the planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning AGAINST competition - the planning which is to be substituted FOR competition.
Hayek is not concerned about freedom, property rights-rather purely utilitarian. Ultimate reason against central planning is the belief that human reasoning is fallible and limited.
Real per capita income growth can only result from an increase in your level of technology(not competition) and technology is the result of humans using their reason to solve problems. All property rights are based on creation. Patents protect that creation. Without protection, people cease to create, society stagnates. Since each person must think for themselves, central planning is a bad idea because it limits people from thinking for themselves. I'll go farther-turns everyone not in power into slaves.