A Quick Hit from Hayek

On January 29, 2010, in Culture, Economics, History, Politics, by marc

The Road to Serfdom, page 174:

…wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people.

Tagged with:  

Tending Towards Totalitarianism

On January 19, 2010, in Culture, Economics, History, Politics, by marc

In honor of the most important by-election in the history of the Unites States of America, I picked up Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom once again.  As usual with this book, I almost immediately ran across a passage worth quoting:

The Road To Serfdom

The Road To Serfdom

No doubt an American or English “Fascist” system would greatly differ from the Italian or German models; no doubt, if the transition were effected without violence, we might expect to get a better type of leader.  And, if I had to live under a Fascist system, I have no doubt that I would rather live under one run by Englishmen or Americans than under one run by anybody else.  Yet all this does not mean that, judged on our present standards, our Fascist system would in the end prove so very different or much less intolerable than its prototypes. There are strong reasons for believing that what to us appear the worst features of the existing totalitarian systems are not accidental by-products but phenomena which totalitarianism is certain sooner or later to produce. Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism.  Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civilization.

Emphasis mine.  We are currently ruled by a collection of miniature tyrants who believe that they can plan our economic life and have little concern for individual liberty.  Today’s election in Massachusetts is an opportunity to discipline said tyrants and send the message that the citizens may be ready to reassume control over their own lives.  I’m hoping and praying for a Scott Brown win, and ultimately a resurgence of individual liberty in the country that did more to bring that concept to the world than any other.

Tagged with:  

Hayek on Exchanging Liberty for Security

On November 4, 2009, in Culture, Economics, by marc

From The Road to Serfdom, Chapter 9 – Security and Freedom:

F.A. Hayek (1899-1992)

F.A. Hayek (1899-1992)

There can be no question that adequate security against severe privation, and the reduction of the avoidable causes of misdirected effort and consequent disappointment, will have to be one of the main goals of policy. But if these endeavors are to be successful and are not to destroy individual freedom, security must be provided outside the market and competition be left to function unobstructed. Some security is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because most men are willing to bear the risk which freedom inevitably involves only so long as that risk is not too great. But while this is a truth of which we must never lose sight, nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom. It is essential that we should re-learn frankly to face the fact that freedom can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be prepared to make severe material sacrifices to preserve our liberty. If we want to retain this, we must regain the conviction on which the rule of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon countries has been based and which Benjamin Franklin expressed in a phrase applicable to us in our lives as individuals no less than as nations: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

My emphasis there. Think of our current situation: bailouts for companies “too big to fail,” government ownership of failing automakers, the desire for state-provided universal healthcare, demands for more and more regulation of businesses and executive salaries, “windfall” profits condemned and threatened with confiscation, the demonization of productive classes, etc. Are we really better off after massive government intervention to protect our economic security – much of which has since proven to be wasteful and ineffective anyway? What have we given away in exchange? Was it worth it?

Tagged with:  

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

On October 16, 2009, in Economics, by marc

A rather ambitious start, wouldn’t you say?

Human Action is Ludwig von Mises’ Magnum Opus, and sometimes described as the free-market’s counterpoint to Marx’s Das Kapital.  From the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Human Action - Ludwig von Mises

Human Action - Ludwig von Mises

Mises’s most monumental achievement was his Human Action (1949), the first comprehensive treatise on economic theory written since the first World War. Here Mises took up the challenge of his own methodology and research program and elaborated an integrated and massive structure of economic theory on his own deductive, “praxeological” principles. Published in an era when economists and governments generally were totally dedicated to statism and Keynesian inflation, Human Action was unread by the economics profession.

Heady stuff, eh?  I picked up a copy of the paperback in June or thereabouts, and I could tell immediately that this one was not going to be something that I could read from cover to cover; it was going to require a LOT of time and a lot of concentration.  And even with concentration, I’d probably miss half of it anyway, because it’s much more scholarly than my normal fare.

I was correct: as of the present day, I’ve made it to page 35.  An excerpt:

…all were fully convinced that there was in the course of social events no such regularity and invariance of phenomena as had already been found in the operation of human reasoning and in the sequence of natural phenomena.  They did not search or the laws of social cooperation because they thought that man could organize society as he pleased.

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

If social conditions did not fulfill the wishes of the reformers, if their utopias proved unrealizable, the fault was seen in the moral failures of man.  Social problems were considered ethical problems.  What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens.  With righteous men any utopia might be realized.

The discovery of the inescapable interdependence of market phenomena overthrew this opinion. Bewildered, people had to face a new view of society.  They learned with stupefaction that there is another aspect from which human action might be viewed than that of good and bad, of fair and unfair, of just and unjust.  In the course of social events there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adjust his actions if he wishes to succeed. It is futile to approach social facts with the attitude of a censor who approves or disapproves from the point of view of quite arbitrary standards and subjective judgments of value.  One must study the laws of human action and social cooperation as the physicist studies the laws of nature.  Human action and social cooperation seen as the object of a science of given relations, no longer as a normative discipline of things that ought to be — this was a revolution of tremendous consequences for knowledge and philosophy as well as for social action.

Some good stuff in there.  While I don’t have a firm handle on his religious beliefs (he was born into a “recently ennobled Jewish family” according to Wikipedia), there are some ideas expressed that mesh very nicely with my Christian and Calvinist worldview, although perhaps in a roundabout way.  Mises is also tapping into the same rich vein of thought on the ability of humans to plan for a more perfect society that F.A. Hayek used to produce his classic work, The Road to Serfdom. And of course, this is a direct attack on John Maynard Keynes and the sort of interventionist economic policies called for by Keynes’ theories and promoted by the governments of that day – and sadly, our day as well.

“What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens.  With righteous men any utopia might be realized.” This is, of course, why utopia will never be realized – at least from a Christian standpoint – because there is no such thing as a “good person.” In a theological sense I refer, of course, to the first of the five points of Calvinism: total depravity.  (See Romans 3:9-19, Westminster Confession Ch. 6, etc.  I’m about 99% sure that Mises didn’t intend to bring Romans and a Reformed confession to mind when he wrote those words, but c’est la vie.)  Mankind is not perfect, and as such we cannot plan perfectly.  A thought occurs to me:  even if we were perfect, would we be able to do so?  It seems obvious that an individual corrupted by sin could not lay out and execute a perfect plan for himself, much less an entire society, for the simple fact that the plan produced by the imperfect person would itself be imperfect, and an imperfect person could not be expected to execute a plan perfectly.  But even if we were not corrupted by nature, would it be possible to create a system that could anticipate the needs of an entire society or civilization?  Does perfection imply omniscience?  I doubt it.  Did Adam and Eve have perfect and full knowledge of God and His creation before the fall?  I don’t think so – and without that, I doubt it would be possible to effectively plan an entire society’s economic life, or anything else for that matter.

Mises notes that the problem the planners ran into was that their plans often went off track or failed altogether, and that problem was compounded by the fact that the planners themselves never considered that the problem was that they were trying to plan an ideal society in the first place.  But in order to plan, you have to be reasonably sure that the people involved in your plan are going to understand the plan and then do what you want them to do.  In an imperfect world, you can’t be sure of that – some people aren’t going to understand the plan, some people aren’t going to do what you want them to do, and some people are going to try to game the system you’ve set up for their benefit.  The planners can’t see all and know all, and the people who they’re planning for might not share the planner’s interests.  As a result, pretty much any Utopian scheme is destined to fail because Utopian schemes ignore the inescapable fact of human corruption.

“In the course of social events there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adjust his actions
if he wishes to succeed.”
This is why markets work – markets organize themselves and provide natural checks and balances on people’s behavior.  Markets automatically adjust themselves to accommodate the quirks of millions upon millions of individual humans, each with their good and bad points, each with their own agendas, and somehow – without planning – manage to provide the most for the most people… as long as they are free.


You can see that I’m just starting to work my way through actually integrating these ideas.  This feels like sort of a mishmash.  But hey, I’m nothing if not ambitious.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Hi all, and welcome to yet another blog.  Not that I really need another new blog, or that I even have anything particularly interesting to say.  As with all of my blogging and tweeting endeavours, this is more for my benefit than anyone elses.

For lack of a better explanation, Ex Libris is going to be my attempt to glean something from my reading.  Over the last year or so, I’ve been digging into a lot of books, often many at once.  And while I’ve enjoyed the process of doing so, I’ve developed a tendency to bite off a bit more than I can chew – in that I have multiple books going at once.  I’m almost positive that I have at least 20 books started, many of which cycle in and out of my range of interest over a period of many months.  The result of this, of course, is that my concentration is divided and I tend to forget where I was when I pick up the book again next time.

I generally catch on pretty quickly once I get back into the flow of a book that I’ve put aside for a while, but I have to admit that reading multiple books at once doesn’t necessarily lend itself to a careful and deep treatment of each text.  So part of what I hope to accomplish here is to note, for myself, passages that catch my interest and perhaps peel back the layers a bit and explore why they grab my imagination.

We’ll see how this goes.  There’s a lot of books covering a pretty wide range of subjects.  For instance, tonight I read a chapter from Roland Hill’s biography of Lord Acton, and then picked up Human Acton by Ludwig von Mises and plowed through a portion.  I’ve also been moving through Lester DeKoster’s Liberation Theology: The Church’s Future Shock and (of course) U2 by U2, among others.  Like I said, a pretty wide range of subjects.  It remains to be seen exactly how well I’ll do at reflecting and writing about all of the books I’m reading, or if I’ll do it at all.  But I suppose it might just be worth the effort.  Again, we’ll see.

So – here goes.  Wish me luck.

Blogged with the Flock Browser