Reading Notes 0121-Free Luck

I read Hayek 's "The Road to Serfdom"

21. Luck of freedom

Title of Chapter Fourteen of The Road to Serfdom: "Material Conditions and Ideal Goals". The inscription under the title is selected from an English celebrity, John Milton (1608-1674). The inquiry revealed that he is a poet, a political commentator, and a fighter for democracy. His representative works include the long poems "Paradise Lost", "Paradise Restoration" and "Samson Lux".

This inscription is taken from Milton's political essay "The Simple Method of Establishing a Free Commonwealth" published in 1660. It is very long and difficult to understand clearly:

Is it just or justified that the majority of people opposed to the main goals of the government should enslave those who should be free? There is no doubt that the minority compels the majority to preserve the liberties enjoyed by the minority if force is used, which is beyond reproach to the majority, and is more harmful than the majority, for the sake of their own inferior tastes, compels the minority in the most harmful way. It is more fair for people to be slaves with them. Those who seek only their own just liberty are always entitled to that liberty as long as they have the power and the number of people who rise up against it is absolutely not enough to overthrow it.

After reading it, I only know that this passage seems to say: Comparing the two situations, whether the minority forces the majority to retain their freedom, or the majority coerces the minority to become slaves together, the former should be more fair. Those who seek rightful liberty can retain liberty as long as they have power.

In this chapter, Hayek seems to use economics to prove political issues, and also to use "economic terms to reinterpret" the previous political ideals and concepts of freedom, equality, and security. Unlike others, though, he was trying to show that the threat to society came from monopoly, not competition. In this chapter he prepares to persuade people to give up the road to slavery.

Societies and civilizations are becoming more and more complex, and there are many non-artificial forces that people had to submit to in the past, and now begin to hate and resist them, with the intention of artificial control and economic planning. But Hayek said: "In the past, it was the obedience of people to the impersonal forces of the market that enabled civilization to grow, without which civilization could not have developed; and it was through this obedience that we were able to Working together every day to build something greater than any of us can fully understand.”

In a complex society, it is impossible for a single person to fully observe all kinds of facts, and it is even more impossible to coordinate diverse individual efforts. People don't know that the only way to get rid of impersonal and seemingly irrational market forces is to take an arbitrary approach, and that a new despotism will inevitably be imposed on people, which will make people feel more pain of.

People argue that learning how to harness social forces is like learning how to harness natural forces. Hayek warns those who think so that they are wrong, that this is not only a road to totalitarianism, but a road to the destruction of our civilization, a road that will inevitably hinder future progress.

Since individual liberty is incompatible with the complete and permanent subordination of the whole of society to a single supreme purpose, a free society can never be subordinated to a single purpose, except in states of war and other temporary disasters. Until then, everything will have to be subordinated to the immediate imperatives, which is the price to pay for preserving our liberties in the long run. It is understandable to sacrifice liberty temporarily for the sake of greater security in the future; but it is another matter to propose these measures as a permanent institutional arrangement. That is, you can't "do whatever it takes" for some short-lived, non-urgent goals. To illustrate this point, Hayek offers an example: overcoming unemployment. Certain coercive measures taken by the government in order to reduce unemployment will inevitably have adverse effects on society.

Afterwards, Hayek discussed the issue of economic recovery after the war. The fate of our civilization, he said, will ultimately depend on how we solve all the economic problems we will face then. He believes that by hard work and putting most of the energy into overhauling and updating our industrial equipment and industrial organization, it will be a few years later to restore or even exceed the level we have achieved in the past, which is almost no problem. We should not be shortsighted to cure poverty by not increasing income, but by redistributing income, which will frustrate many classes of people and turn them into mortal enemies of the current political system.

Obviously, due to the destruction of the war, when writing "The Road to Serfdom", Britain was faced with the serious problem of post-war reconstruction, whether to overthrow the original system and take the road of a planned economy such as collectivism, or continue to liberalism The road to market competition, serious issues are placed in front of the British, and must be carefully considered. Hayek also had to speak out, from the perspectives of economics and morality, as well as the values of freedom and independence, truth and sincerity, peace and democracy, to persuade people to adhere to the market economy, to adhere to economic freedom and to adhere to personal freedom. .

In fact, almost all countries are faced with a process of economic recovery after years of war, and they have the problem of re-choosing the path to take. In reality, Britain, due to the war has greatly damaged its vitality, its national strength has declined, and the national consciousness of various colonial countries has risen to gain independence. aid to restore and develop the economy.

Despite Hayek's constant clamor, there is a rush to restore the economy quickly. According to the information, in July 1945, the British Conservative Party lost the general election, and the Labour Party unexpectedly won. The Labour Party formed a separate cabinet and established the first post-war British government with Labour leader Clement Attlee as prime minister. As soon as the Labour government was established, it was determined to implement a series of reforms to revitalize the post-war British economy and improve social conditions. The main contents of the reform of the Labour government are the nationalization of enterprises, economic planning and the implementation of the welfare state system.

The economic and social policies of the British Labour government have greatly promoted the recovery and revival of the British economy in the early post-war period. Compared to the rest of Western Europe, the UK reached pre-war economic levels earlier in 1948. The Marshall Plan made the United Kingdom get another 120 million US dollars from the aid provided by the United States to Europe, which stabilized the British financial market and put the British economy on the road of recovery more quickly. By 1950, the British economy had achieved an annual growth rate of 4%, for which the Labour Party won the general election in 1950 and remained in power. Although the Conservative Party returned to power through the general election a year later due to the unsatisfactory internal and external policies of the Labour government, the reform results of the Labour government were not denied.

In October 1951, the Conservative Party formed a new government with Churchill as prime minister, and the Conservative Party's 13-year ruling period began. Apart from terminating the nationalisation plan of the steel industry and the domestic transport industry that Labour had planned to implement, the Conservative government basically accepted the reality of nationalisation; at the same time, it continued to implement welfare policies, but to a certain extent, it reduced the country's national health care. some expenses. The Churchill government also ended the strict control of economic life by the country during the war, so that the British economy could develop better.

In the early 1950s, the British economy was prosperous, and its GDP ranked second in the capitalist world. Although entering the second half of the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s, compared with the rapid economic development of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Japan, the UK's economic development was relatively slow, but the UK's economic growth remained 2% to 3%.

After the war, the economic policy of Keynesianism restored the stability of British society, and the "golden age" of the economy appeared in the 20 years after the war. However, by the 1970s, the British economy was facing many crises. Since 1979, the Conservative Party, which pursued neoliberalism, has been in power for 18 consecutive years, focusing on "returning" to the free economy, that is, "liberating the market and compressing the big government". Hayek himself also ushered in the peak of glory after many years of silence, winning the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974. Subsequently, his free market economic theory was adopted by major powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The previous excessive state intervention changed to liberalism. The proportion of state capital decreased and private capital was strengthened again; the degree of economic planning decreased, and the role of the free market increased. ; State intervention is weakened and free competition is strengthened. The transition of "more markets, less government" has become a new trend in British economic development. By 1981, Britain had finally emerged from a decade of stagflation, ushering in a golden age of "new" liberalism.

In this way, after the war, Hayek's outcry did not play a big role. In order to quickly restore the economy, the British people chose a method with a certain degree of collectivism, and it was only in the 1970s and 1980s that they really returned to freedom. on the path of socialism. Perhaps, to rebuild the country and restore the economy from the ruins of the post-war period, and to implement a certain degree of planned economy for a period of time, can be regarded as a quasi-war state, and the temporary sacrifice of freedom to meet the immediate need is a last resort. way.

In any case, it is fortunate that the British economy has largely managed to return to pre-war levels. Fortunately, the democratic system has not been destroyed, the people can still influence policies through the votes in their hands, and the people still enjoy the freedom of choice. According to Hayek's theory, this is what is said in Chapter 5 "Planning and Democracy" that "democracy is the guarantee of freedom". As long as the democratic system remains effective, temporary ups and downs will not fundamentally shake the foundation of freedom.

This is the luck of the UK. But not all countries are so lucky. The most typical example is Argentina in South America. The once developed and rich country has swung back and forth between the planned economy and the liberal economy many times, rising and falling, and finally fell into the depths of the quagmire, and is still struggling today. What kind of economic system and political system should be implemented in the end is most beneficial to a country? The Argentines had to continue their own quest. As a layman in economic policy and without a deep understanding of Argentina's history and specific social conditions, I can't really say anything constructive, except for a casual one: society should be respected like the laws of nature. Development Law.

For this chapter, what I think deserves the most serious consideration is this sentence: "In a system that destroys personal liberty and personal responsibility, neither goodwill nor organizational efficiency is sufficient to secure a person's life."

Clearly, what Hayek cherishes most is personal freedom. There is an aphoristic slogan, which has also appeared in our article, that is: "Be free or die!" It is found that it came from the last speech of an American Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in the Legislative Assembly of Colonial Virginia. One sentence: "Give me liberty or give me death."

If presented with a two-choice multiple-choice question, how would people choose? Multiple-choice questions: one is to be rich but not free; the other is to satisfy basic food and clothing and be free. I guess, Hayek will choose the latter when faced with this multiple-choice question? What about the Argentine people? In fact, if you can choose another question, I think people will be a little bit greedy, and they want to be rich and free. Only those who are already poor and afraid will have different ideas. They should choose wealth first and then freedom. Even if they are rich and luxurious, even if they temporarily lose their freedom, they hope that they can win a little bit later. Just look at Hayek's meaning, after totalitarianism, people can't choose, lose freedom and then lose wealth, and eventually fall into poverty and slavery. I hope we still have the opportunity to choose, to strive for freedom in abundance, and to seek wealth and honor in freedom.