Awfully presumptuous of you. That said, a person may be mistaken in one area of their thinking without being totally mistaken in all areas of their thinking. Take yourself for example.Nemo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:30 pmSo you haven't read enough Hayek to know he was for free public healthcare, a basic income and radical free education where knowledge was completely accessible for everyone.
Umm, no. Amazon and Walmart are monopolies that need to be broken up, just as Standard Oil was broken up. Hayek, in his book, speaks of the dangers of permitting monopolies to form.But most of his economic theories turned out to be a bust. China and the business models of Walmart and Amazon refute them completely.
As does all of Europe, Canada, Australia NZ, etc not turning into totalitarian states because they have government planning.
I guess you don't really get the gist of Hayek's argument, so I will reproduce it here for your edification:
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 85). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.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.”
Keynes was quite fond of Road to Serfdom, in fact, and praised it when it was published, despite the fact that the two were often at loggerheads. Keynes even wrote to Hayke in 1944:Road to Serfdom was reactionary to the Commies of his day trying to do top down state capitalism and calling it communism. Even Hayek would admit it was his worst and most ideological work. Keynes is the one who economics proved was right.
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (pp. 23-24). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.“morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it; and not only in agreement with it, but in a deeply moved agreement.”
Road to Serfdom does little in the way of offering proposals and solutions. Indeed, one of the main criticism is of the book is that it primarily focused on right and left-wing collectivism in general.
With respect to things like universal health care, free education, and so on -- these things are not within the purview of what Hayek is defining as "central planning" or "collectivism."
So again, for those who are willing to be seduced by the term "socialism," I think a review of Hayek's little book is important. Reading it does not necessarily entail subscribing to Van Mises' Austrian School of Economics and so on. But Road to Serfdom certainly points out the deficiencies of centralized planning of whole economies:
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 84). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.We must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to current ideas of social justice. “Planning,” therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that “production for use” be substituted for production for profit. But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way which to us appears to be the opposite of just. Whether we should wish that more of the good things of this world should go to some racial élite, the Nordic men, or the members of a party or an aristocracy, the methods which we shall have to employ are the same as those which could insure an equalitarian distribution.
This is the consequence of centralized planning of economies:
Hayek, F. A.. The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (p. 109-110). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.It is the price of democracy that the possibilities of conscious control are restricted to the fields where true agreement exists and that in some fields things must be left to chance. But in a society which for its functioning depends on central planning this control cannot be made dependent on a majority’s being able to agree; it will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people, because this minority will be the largest group able to agree among themselves on the question at issue. Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion; and it is the great merit of the liberal creed that it reduced the range of subjects on which agreement was necessary to one on which it was likely to exist in a society of free men. It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate “capitalism.” If “capitalism” means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.
I frankly see no compelling arguments that negate Hayek's basic thesis here, despite whatever faults his other work may bear.