“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.”
Friedrich A. Hayek (via basedgodtrilla)
Do not use the terms freedom and democracy interchangeably
“Individuals should be allowed.. to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s…”-F.A. Hayek
“This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egoistic or selfish, or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society, and that, since, strictly speaking, scales of value can exist only in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist, scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other. From this the individualist concludes that the individuals should be allowed, within defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else’s, that within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others. It is this recognition of the individual as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought to govern his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position.”
In all democratic countries, in the United States even more than elsewhere, a strong belief prevails that the influence of the intellectuals on politics is negligible. This is no doubt true of the power of intellectuals to make their peculiar opinions of the moment influence decisions, of the extent to which they can sway the popular vote on questions on which they differ from the current views of the masses. Yet over somewhat longer periods they have probably never exercised so great an influence as they do today in those countries. This power they wield by shaping public opinion.
I had been saying this my entire life.
“Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.”
– F.A. Hayek (via communismkills)
“It is, however, a fatal delusion to believe that authoritarian government can be confined to economic matters. The tragic fact is that authoritarian direction cannot be restricted to economic life, but it is bound to expand and become “totalitarian” in the strictest sense of the word. The economic dictator will soon find himself forced, even against his wishes, to assume dictatorship over the whole of the political and cultural life of the people.”
– F.A. Hayek, Freedom and the Economic System (via luchadoreofliberty)
“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.” -F.A. Hayek
Will Cain [National Review] VS Art Carden [Forbes Contributor]
On Boom & Busts; The Fed? Dampen Inate Human Mania?
FA Hayek on Right To Work Law
I think it was Will Cain [on Real News from The Blaze 1-23-12] who, in a discussion about Unions & The Super Bowl [or some such] brought up that “Right To Work Laws” are only making the best of a bad situation and are not ‘free market’ but still a ‘freer’ solution than defacto supreme court bs & bs laws.
I’ve heard this argument before but it didn’t quite make sense [due to the one arguing it].
I might actually have to keep watching this show if they can manage to keep the level of insipid down to a minimum~
In ordinary language we describe by the word “planning” the complex of interrelated decisions about the allocation of our available resources. All economic activity is in this sense planning; and in any society in which many people collaborate, this planning, whoever does it, will in some measure have to be based on knowledge which, in the first instance, is not given to the planner but to somebody else, which somehow will have to be conveyed to the planner. The various ways in which the knowledge on which people base their plans is communicated to them is the crucial problem for any theory explaining the economic process, and the problem of what is the best way of utilizing knowledge initially dispersed among all the people is at least one of the main problems of economic policy—or of designing an efficient economic system.
The answer to this question is closely connected with that other question which arises here, that of who is to do the planning. It is about this question that all the dispute about “economic planning” centers. This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals. Planning in the specific sense in which the term is used in contemporary controversy necessarily means central planning—direction of the whole economic system according to one unified plan. Competition, on the other hand, means decentralized planning by many separate persons. The halfway house between the two, about which many people talk but which few like when they see it, is the delegation of planning to organized industries, or, in other words, monopoly.
Which of these systems is likely to be more efficient depends mainly on the question under which of them we can expect that fuller use will be made of the existing knowledge. And this, in turn, depends on whether we are more likely to succeed in putting at the disposal of a single central authority all the knowledge which ought to be used but which is initially dispersed among many different individuals, or in conveying to the individuals such additional knowledge as they need in order to enable them to fit their plans with those of others.
Asderathos: A Communist Central Plan
The information necessary for informed decision making to be addressed by economic planning, is inescapably localized.