The Road to Serfdom

Thanks for your post. "Road to Serfdom" is easily my favorite political book and one that ought to be read by everyone.

What's surprising is that the principles of individual freedom that Hayek describes and champions so eloquently have not been abandoned by just the Left, but increasingly also the Right. While I am not exactly expecting freepers to come on this thread and attack Hayek, there can sometimes be on FR, and I suppose this must be a reflection of modern "conservatism," surprisingly little respect for individual freedom.

Agreed. Per Hayek's dedication "To Socialists of All Parties", the monopolies, tariffs, subsidies etc that are as likely to find GOP support, are forms of central planning and thus detrimental to freedom.

I'll change gears a bit and say IMHO, Scotus bears the major share of blame as we travel down the socialist road. Over the past four generations, Scotus has found Social Security, progressive income taxes, farm price supports, forced school busing, abortion, seizure of private property for private use, so-called campaign finance reform and probably dozens of other cases constitutional when in fact they are abhorrent to the Constitution. The very branch of government designed to protect our liberties and be a check on the power of the other two branches is actually an aider and abettor of near unlimited government.

"-- It is only because the majority opinion will always be opposed by some that our knowledge and understanding progress.

In the process by which opinion is formed, it is very probable that, by the time any view becomes a majority view, it is no longer the best view: somebody will already have advanced beyond the point which the majority have reached.
It is because we do not yet which of the many competing new opinions will prove itself the best that we wait until it has gained sufficient support.

...it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not possess and because each individual's use of his particular knowledge may serve to assist others unknown to him in achieving their ends that men as members of civilized society can pursue their individual ends so much more successfully than they could alone.

...the ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs.

Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that "the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science." Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities.

It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.

Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. --"

The Road to Serfdom, p xi.

Why I Am Not a Conservative

By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

In The Constitution of Liberty
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)

"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton

At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition.

In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached.

There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally.

It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

Address:http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cons.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A long read, but worth it. -- Or, -- skip down to where he starts describing himself as a Whig.

Do you draw a distinction between British conservatives and today's US conservatives? FWIIW, I see Brit conservatives of 70 years ago as fighting the closing, losing battles against triumphant socialism in a vain attempt to restore class, privilege and ideally, empire.

Well put, -- and that's a good reason for why they lost..

Over here I regard conservatives (not to be confused with the GOP) as generally supportive of a return to the principles of our founding document, that of defined powers.

Being "generally supportive of a return to the principles of our founding document" is just ~barely~ true on FR, --- even though the site is dedicated to that proposition.
Even on gun control issues there is open opposition to traditional 'conservative' constitutionalist views. Owning/carrying full auto weapons is seen as too radical, for instance, by many here.

I don't know if SCOTUS exactly bears most of the blame, since Congress and the executive branch are also pledged to protect our Constitution, but have instead spend 60 or more years doing their best to dismantle it. But SCOTUS, as you say, has certainly been happy to give its approval to all the wanton destruction.

Yeah, I am kind of shocked that under a Republican administration we got CFR and Eminent Domain, both with hardly a whisper of dissent by our president. But it was a good illustration of where our party really stands. Also, the "conservative" judge, Scalia, wrote an opinion that basically said that since anything at all may be related to interstate commerce, the "commerce clause" gives Congress authority to regulate almost anything. 'Course, most all of the citizens think somebody is supposed to be in charge of us all, so having a government that doesn't think this would be something of a surprise.

Jefferson's warning that the power of the state tends to grow at the expense of liberty is turning out to be prophetic.

Yes, yes the other branches certainly share the blame. What rubs me raw is that there are only two ways to limit judicial power. One is to impeach and toss from office, which for some reason has developed a bad name. The other is for Congress to deny the court jurisdiction over a particular law. Anyway, the other two branches have allowed scotus to run rampant without check.

I did not know Scalia interpreted interstate commerce so broadly.

Oh, from Judge Napolitano of Fox News fame, Scotus did not shoot down a single federal law between 1939 and 1995. So much mischief.

From Chapter III,
The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.

Watch, when the time comes, scotus will find hillary or obama national healthcare to be constitutional.

It will be all over.

Scalia asserted that growing a little marijuana for personal use might have an effect on interstate commerce, therefore Congress has the right to regulate it. I can't remember if he thought this was paralleled elsewhere in national lawmaking, but in my mind it certainly is. I hesitate to bring it up at all, since the drug issue muddies the constitutional issue in the minds of many. However, there really isn't much doubt that the ruling opened up just about everything to regulation by politicians.

I'm sure that Scalia is a good man, but he is apparently willing to put aside principles in pursuit of pet goals. Hayek had a quote for this also, he referred to it as "sacrificing principle in the name of expediency."

"The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit."

So very apropos. Our Constitution will certainly lose all of its meaning when we reach the time where the people no longer value its principles. We are close to that time I think, since while the Left actively attacks those principles, most of the "Right" no longer finds value in them.

Everyone is focused on which party will find the best solution to a given problem, forgetting that most problems are not the province of government at all, but were intended to have been left to the people.

The leftist disingenuous answer to that is that the government *is* the people, meaning unfortunately that government power is total.

I’m going to bump this old thread because it’s vitally important.

It is important for us to understand not only what it is that we oppose (socialism, in whatever guise it appears) but also as a reminder that It Can Happen Here—it can happen anywhere.

The attraction towards socialism is inherent in we fallen, imperfect humans. Part of it is a retreat to the comfort of childhood, when big problems would be taken care of by “people who know better than we do.” Part of it is pure, naked greed, selfishness, and lazyness.

It is not enough to believe that collectivism is bad. We as a people need to re-learn exactly why it is bad for the human spirit, in addition to why it is as an economic system doomed to certain failure.

The socialists believe with every fiber of their being that they have the high moral ground.

We must show them that their “morality” is in fact everything they actually despise and will inevitably lead to everything that they themselves oppose. Socialist morality leads inexorably to serfdom, and to slavery.

Some will not turn away from error and evil. But some will. It is to those people we need to address ourselves to, not in anger, but in compassion, in caring, and in love.

In order to win this latest battle in the neverending war against the socialists, we must show—demonstrate—teach—lead others towards the truth. We have to use their language to reach them, not our words but theirs. We already know that they simply do not understand us. We need to find a message that will cut through their prejudices and preconceptions and reach into their hearts. Then and only then will we have a chance to turn them away from the path to serfdom, slavery, and misery.

As another really good book says, “the truth shall set you free.”

It is precisely because we are imperfect that the rule of man over man will always degenerate into tyranny. It is not required to be a Christian to understand this eternal truth.

But it does help.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.