Background Image

...

Our Submission To General Principles Is Necessary Because We Cannot Be Guided In Our Practical Action By Full Knowledge And Evaluation Of The Consequences. So Long As Men Are Not Omniscient, The Only Way In Which Freedom Can Be Given To The Individual Is By Such General Rules To Delimit The Sphere In Which The Decision Is His. There Can Be No Freedom If The Government Is Not Limited To Particular Kinds Of Action But Can Use Its Powers In Any Ways Which Serve Particular Ends.

-Friedrich August Von Hayek

...

Please Wait....
Translating....

Our Submission To General

Friedrich August Von Hayek

...

Our Submission To General Principles Is Necessary Because We Cannot Be Guided In Our Practical Action By Full Knowledge And Evaluation Of The Consequences. So Long As Men Are Not Omniscient, The Only Way In Which Freedom Can Be Given To The Individual Is By Such General Rules To Delimit The Sphere In Which The Decision Is His. There Can Be No Freedom If The Government Is Not Limited To Particular Kinds Of Action But Can Use Its Powers In Any Ways Which Serve Particular Ends.

Views: 5

Topic

More From Friedrich August Von Hayek

All Political Theories Assume, Of Course, That Most Individuals Are Very Ignorant. Those Who Plead For Liberty Differ From The Rest In That They Include Among The Ignorant Themselves As Well As The Wisest. Compared With The Totality Of Knowledge Which Is Continually Utilized In The Evolution Of A Dynamic Civilization, The Difference Between The Knowledge That The Wisest And That The Most Ignorant Individual Can Deliberately Employ Is Comparatively Insignificant.

We Did Not Realise How Fragile Our Civilisation Was.

It Is Also True That The Less Possible It Becomes For A Man To Acquire A New Fortune, The More Must The Existing Fortunes Appear As Privileges For Which There Is No Justification. Policy Is Then Certain To Aim At Taking These Fortunes Out Of Private Hands, Either By The Slow Process Of Heavy Taxation Of Inheritance Or By The Quicker One Of Outright Confiscation. A System Based On Private Property And Control Of The Means Of Production Presupposes That Such Property And Control Can Be Acquired By Any Successful Man.

Socialism Has Never And Nowhere Been At First A Working-class Movement.

To Combat The Depression By A Forced Credit Expansion Is To Attempt To Cure The Evil By The Very Means Which Brought It About.

Each Member Of Society Can Have Only A Small Fraction Of The Knowledge Possessed By All, And...each Is Therefore Ignorant Of Most Of The Facts On Which The Working Of Society Rests...civilization Rests On The Fact That We All Benefit From Knowledge Which We Do Not Possess. And One Of The Ways In Which Civilization Helps Us To Overcome That Limitation On The Extent Of Individual Knowledge Is By Conquering Intelligence, Not By The Acquisition Of More Knowledge, But By The Utilization Of Knowledge Which Is And Which Remains Widely Dispersed Among Individuals.

In Government, The Scum Rises To The Top.

One Need Not Be A Prophet To Be Aware Of Impending Dangers. An Accidental Combination Of Experience And Interest Will Often Reveal Events To One Man Under Aspects Which Few Yet See.

Fascism Is The Stage Reached After Communism Has Proved An Illusion.

Freedom Necessarily Means That Many Things Will Be Done Which We Do Not Like.

Once Wide Coercive Powers Are Given To Governmental Agencies For Particular Purposes, Such Powers Cannot Be Effectively Controlled By Democratic Assemblies.

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.

Without The Rich - Without Those Who Accumulated Capital - Those Poor Who Could Exist At All Would Be Very Much Poorer Indeed, Scratching A Livelihood From Marginal Lands On Which Every Drought Would Kill Most Of The Children They Would Be Trying To Raise.

Unlike Proportionality, Progression Provides No Principle Which Tells Us What The Relative Burden Of Different Persons Ought To Be The Argument Based On The Presumed Justice Of Progression Provides No Limitation, As Has Often Been Admitted By Its Supporters, Before All Incomes Above A Certain Figure Are Confiscated, And Those Below Left Untaxed.

The Greatest Danger To Liberty Today Comes From The Men Who Are Most Needed And Most Powerful In Modern Government, Namely, The Efficient Expert Administrators Exclusively Concerned With What They Regard As The Public Good.

The Conservatives Have Already Accepted A Large Part Of The Collectivist Creed-a Creed That Has Governed Policy For So Long That Many Of Its Institutions Have Come To Be Accepted As A Matter Of Course And Have Become A Source Of Pride To "conservative" Parties Who Created Them. Here The Believer In Freedom Cannot But Conflict With The Conservative And Take An Essentially Radical Position, Directed Against Popular Prejudices, Entrenched Positions, And Firmly Established Privileges. Follies And Abuses Are No Better For Having Long Been Established Principles Of Folly.

If Democracy Is A Means Rather Than An End, Its Limits Must Be Determined In The Light Of The Purpose We Want It To Serve.

Socialism Has Never And Nowhere Been At First A Working-class Movement. It Is By No Means An Obvious Remedy For The Obvious Evil Which The Interests Of That Class Will Necessarily Demand. It Is A Construction Of Theorists.

A Claim For Equality Of Material Position Can Be Met Only By A Government With Totalitarian Powers.

I Am Still Puzzled Why Those In The United States Who Truly Believe In Liberty Should Not Only Have Allowed The Left To Appropriate This Almost Indispensable Term But Should Even Have Assisted By Beginning To Use It Themselves As A Term Of Opprobrium. This Seems To Be Particularly Regrettable Because Of The Consequent Tendency Of Many True Liberals To Describe Themselves As Conservatives.

From The Fact That People Are Very Different It Follows That, If We Treat Them Equally, The Result Must Be Inequality In Their Actual Position, And That The Only Way To Place Them In An Equal Position Would Be To Treat Them Differently. Equality Before The Law And Material Equality Are Therefore Not Only Different But Are In Conflict With Each Other; And We Can Achieve Either One Or The Other, But Not Both At The Same Time.

The Principle That The End Justifies The Means Is In Individualist Ethics Regarded As The Denial Of All Morals. In Collectivist Ethics It Becomes Necessarily The Supreme Rule.

'emergencies' Have Always Been The Pretext On Which The Safeguards Of Individual Liberty Have Been Eroded.

A General Flat Minimum-wage Law For All Industry Is Permissible, But I Do Not Think That It Is A Particularly Wise Method Of Achieving The End. I Know Much Better Methods Of Providing A Minimum For Everybody. But Once You Turn From Laying Down A General Minimum For All Industry To Decreeing Particular And Different Minimum For Different Industries, Then, Of Course, You Make The Price Mechanism Inoperative, Because It Is No Longer The Price Mechanism Which Will Guide People Between Industries And Trades.

Socialist Thought Owes Its Appeal To The Young Largely To Its Visionary Character; The Very Courage To Indulge In Utopian Thought Is In This Respect A Source Of Strength For Socialism Which Traditional Liberalism Sadly Lacks. Speculation About General Principles Provides An Opportunity For The Play Of The Imagination Of Those Who Are Unencumbered By Much Knowledge Of The Facts Of Present-day Life. Their Ideas Suffer From Inherent Contradictions, And Any Attempt To Put Them Into Practice Must Produce Something Utterly Different From What They Expect.

Democracy Is Essentially A Means, A Utilitarian Device For Safeguarding Internal Peace And Individual Freedom. As Such It Is By No Means Infallible Or Certain. Nor Must We Forget That There Has Often Been Much More Cultural And Spiritual Freedom Under An Autocratic Rule Than Under Some Democracies And It Is At Least Conceivable That Under The Government Of A Very Homogeneous And Doctrinaire Majority Democratic Government Might Be As Oppressive As The Worst Dictatorship.

If We Can Reduce The Risk Of Friction Likely To Lead To War, This Is Probably All We Can Reasonably Hope To Achieve.

When We Ask What Ought To Be The Relative Remunerations Of A Nurse Or A Butcher, Or A Coal Miner And A Judge At A High Court, Of The Deep Sea Diver Of The Cleaner Of Sewers, Of The Organiser Of A New Industry And A Jockey, Of The Inspector Of Taxes And The Inventor Of A Life-saving Drug, Of The Jet-pilot Or The Professor Of Mathematics, The Appeal To 'social Justice' Does Not Give Us The Slightest Help In Deciding.

Whenever It Is Necessary That One Of Several Conflicting Opinions Should Prevail And When One Would Have To Be Made To Prevail By Force If Need Be, It Is Less Wasteful To Determine Which Has The Stronger Support By Counting Numbers Than By Fighting.

It Can Hardly Be Denied That Such A Demand Quite Arbitrarily Limits The Facts Which Are To Be Admitted As Possible Causes Of The Events Which Occur In The Real World.

If The Human Intellect Is Allowed To Impose A Preconceived Pattern On Society, If Our Powers Of Reasoning Are Allowed To Lay Claim To A Monopoly Of Creative Effort... Then We Must Not Be Surprised If Society, As Such, Ceases To Function As A Creative Force.

Liberty And Responsibility Are Inseparable.

We Shall Not Grow Wiser Before We Learn That Much That We Have Done Was Very Foolish.

From The Saintly And Single-minded Idealist To The Fanatic Is Often But A Step.

Road To Serfdom

Socialism Is Simply A Re-assertion Of That Tribal Ethics Whose Gradual Weakening Had Made An Approach To The Great Society Possible.

The Economic Freedom Which Is The Prerequisite Of Any Other Freedom Cannot Be The Freedom From Economic Care Which The Socialist Promise Us, And Which Can Be Obtained Only By Relieving The Individual At The Same Time Of The Necessity And Of The Power Of Choice: It Must Be The Freedom Of Economic Activity Which, With The Right Of Choice, Inevitably Also Carries The Risk And The Responsibility Of That Right

I Am Certain, However, That Nothing Has Done So Much To Destroy The Juridical Safeguards Of Individual Freedom As The Striving After This Mirage Of Social Justice.

I Have Arrived At The Conviction That The Neglect By Economists To Discuss Seriously What Is Really The Crucial Problem Of Our Time Is Due To A Certain Timidity About Soiling Their Hands By Going From Purely Scientific Questions Into Value Questions.

To Create Conditions In Which Competition Will Be As Effective As Possible, To Prevent Fraud And Deception, To Break Up Monopolies- These Tasks Provide A Wide And Unquestioned Field For State Activity.

The Moral Consequences Of Totalitarian Propaganda...are Destructive Of All Morals Because They Undermind One Of The Foundations Of All Morals: The Sense Of And Respect For Truth.

Capitalism Created The Possibility Of Employment.

And It's A Necessity [for Journalists] To Pretend To Be Competent On Every Subject, Some Of Which They Really Do Not Understand. They Are Under That Necessity, I Regret; I'm Sorry For Them. But To Pretend To Understand All The Things You Write About, And Habitually To Write About Things You Do Not Understand, Is A Very Corrupting Thing.

It Is Indeed Probable That More Harm And Misery Have Been Caused By Men Determined To Use Coercion To Stamp Out A Moral Evil Than By Men Intent On Doing Evil.

Even When Men Approve Of The Same Arrangements, It Must Be Asked Whether They Approve Of Them Because They Exist Or Because They Are Desirable In Themselves. The Common Resistance To The Collectivist Tide Should Not Be Allowed To Obscure The Fact That The Belief In Integral Freedom Is Based On An Essentially Forward-looking Attitude And Not On Any Nostalgic Longing For The Past Or A Romantic Admiration For What Has Been.

It Is Because Every Individual Knows Little And, In Particular, Because We Rarely Know Which Of Us Knows Best Best That We Trust The Independent And Competitive Efforts Of Many To Induce The Emergence Of What We Shall Want When We See It.

I Do Not Think It Is An Exaggeration To Say History Is Largely A History Of Inflation, Usually Inflations Engineered By Governments For The Gain Of Governments.

Exaggeration Is

Nothing Is More Securely Lodged Than The Ignorance Of The Experts.

It Is Perhaps The Most Characteristic Feature Of The Intellectual That He Judges New Ideas Not By Their Specific Merits But By The Readiness With Which They Fit Into His General Conceptions, Into The Picture Of The World Which He Regards As Modern Or Advanced.

We Can Either Have A Free Parliament Or A Free People. Personal Freedom Requires That All Authority Is Restrained By Long-run Principles Which The Opinion Of The People Approves.

What A Free Society Offers To The Individual Is Much More Than What He Would Be Able To Do If Only He Were Free.

The Power Which A Multiple Millionaire, Who May Be My Neighbor And Perhaps My Employer, Has Over Me Is Very Much Less Than That Which The Smallest "functionaire" Possesses Who Wields The Coercive Power Of The State, And On Whose Desecration It Depends Whether And How I Am Allowed To Live Or To Work.

To Undertake The Direction Of The Economic Life Of People With Widely Divergent Ideals And Values Is To Assume Responsibilities Which Commit One To The Use Of Force; It Is To Assume A Position Where The Best Intentions Cannot Prevent One From Being Forced To Act In A Way Which To Some Of Those Affected Must Appear Highly Immoral. This Is True Even If We Assume The Dominant Power To Be As Idealistic And Unselfish As We Can Possibly Conceive. But How Small Is The Likelihood That It Will Be Unselfish, And How Great Are The Temptations!

The Conservative Feels Safe And Content Only If He Is Assured That Some Higher Wisdom Watches And Supervises Change, Only If He Knows That Some Authority Is Charged With Keeping The Change "orderly.

It May Be That A Free Society... Carries In Itself The Forces Of Its Own Destruction, That Once Freedom Has Been Achieved It Is Taken For Granted And Ceases To Be Valued, And That The Free Growth Of Ideas Which Is The Essence Of A Free Society Will Bring About The Destruction Of The Foundations On Which It Depends.

We Must Make The Building Of A Free Society Once More An Intellectual Adventure, A Deed Of Courage. Unless We Can Make The Philosophic Foundations Of A Free Society Once More A Living Intellectual Issue, And Its Implementation A Task Which Challenges The Ingenuity And Imagination Of Our Liveliest Minds, The Prospects Of Freedom Are Indeed Dark. But If We Can Regain That Belief In The Power Of Ideas Which Was The Mark Of Liberalism At Its Best, The Battle Is Not Lost.

It Is When It Is Contended That "in A Democracy Right Is What The Majority Makes It To Be" That Democracy Degenerates Into Demagoguery.

It Is Of The Essence Of The Demand For Equality Before The Law That People Should Be Treated Alike In Spite Of The Fact That They Are Different.

The Chief Evil Is Unlimited Government, And Nobody Is Qualified To Wield Unlimited Power.

Our Faith In Freedom Does Not Rest On The Foreseeable Results In Particular Circumstances, But On The Belief That It Will, On Balance, Release More Forces For The Good Than For The Bad ... Freedom Granted Only When It Is Known Beforehand That Its Effects Will Be Beneficial Is Not Freedom.

Every Change In Conditions Will Make Necessary Some Change In The Use Of Resources, In The Direction And Kind Of Human Activities, In Habits And Practices. And Each Change In The Actions Of Those Affected In The First Instance Will Require Further Adjustments That Will Gradually Extend Through The Whole Of Society. Every Change Thus In A Sense Creates A "problemfor Society, Even Though No Single Individual Perceives It As Such; It Is Gradually "solvedby The Establishment Of A New Overall Adjustment.

That Democratic Socialism, The Great Utopia Of The Last Few Generations, Is Not Only Unachievable, But That To Strive For It Produces Something So Utterly Different That Few Of Those Who Wish It Would Be Prepared To Accept The Consequences, Many Will Not Believe Until The Connection Has Been Laid Bare In All Its Aspects.

Democratic Socialism

Why Should We, However, In Economics, Have To Plead Ignorance Of The Sort Of Facts On Which, In The Case Of A Physical Theory, A Scientist Would Certainly Be Expected To Give Precise Information?

There Is, In A Competitive Society, Nobody Who Can Exercise Even A Fraction Of The Power Which A Socialist Planning Board Would Possess.

And Who Will Deny That A World In Which The Wealthy Are Powerful Is Still A Better World Than One In Which Only The Already Powerful Can Acquire Wealth?

In Abbreviated Form, By A Kind Of Symbol, Only The Most Essential Information Is Passed On And Passed On Only To Those Concerned. It Is More Than A Metaphor To Describe The Price System As A Kind Of Machinery For Registering Change, Or A System Of Telecommunications Which Enables Individual Producers To Watch Merely The Movement Of A Few Pointers, As An Engineer Might Watch The Hands Of A Few Dials, In Order To Adjust Their Activities To Changes Of Which They May Never Know More Than Is Reflected In The Price Movement.

Many Of The Greatest Things Man Has Achieved Are Not The Result Of Consciously Directed Thought, And Still Less The Product Of A Deliberately Coordinated Effort Of Many Individuals, But Of A Process In Which The Individual Plays A Part Which He Can Never Fully Understand.

Whatever Men Live For, Today Most Live Only Because Of The Market Order.

It Is Rather A Problem Of How To Secure The Best Use Of Resources Known To Any Of The Members Of Society, For Ends Whose Relative Importance Only Those Individuals Know.

It Would Clearly Not Be An Improvement To Build All Houses Exactly Alike In Order To Create A Perfect Market For Houses, And The Same Is True Of Most Other Fields Where Differences Between The Individual Products Prevent Competition From Ever Being Perfect.

We Shall All Be The Gainers If We Can Create A World Fit For Small States To Live In.

... I Prefer True But Imperfect Knowledge, Even If It Leaves Much Undetermined And Unpredictable, To A Pretense Of Exact Knowledge That Is Likely To Be False.

If Most People Are Not Willing To See The Difficulty, This Is Mainly Because, Consciously Or Unconsciously, They Assume That It Will Be They Who Will Settle These Questions For The Others, And Because They Are Convinced Of Their Own Capacity To Do This.

In The Small Group The Individual Can Know The Effects Of His Actions On His Several Fellows, And The Rules May Effectively Forbid Him To Harm Them In Any Manner And Even Require Him To Assist Them In Specific Ways. In The Great Society Many Of The Effects Of A Person's Actions On Various Fellows Must Be Unknown To Him. It Can, Therefore, Not Be The Specific Effects In The Particular Case, But Only Rules Which Define Kinds Of Actions Prohibited Or Required, Which Must Serve As Guides To The Individual.

Nowhere Has Democracy Ever Worked Well Without A Great Measure Of Local Self-government, Providing A School Of Political Training For The People At Large As Much As For Their Future Leaders.

The Nobel Prize Confers On An Individual An Authority Which In Economics No Man Ought To Possess.

There Is Perhaps No Single Factor Contributing So Much To People's Frequent Reluctance To Let The Market Work As Their Inability To Conceive How Some Necessary Balance, Between Demand And Supply, Between Exports And Imports, Or The Like, Will Be Brought About Without Deliberate Control. The Conservative Feels Safe And Content Only If He Is Assured That Some Higher Wisdom Watches And Supervises Change, Only If He Knows That Some Authority Is Charged With Keeping The Change "orderly.

Least Of All Shall We Preserve Democracy Or Foster Its Growth If All The Power And Most Of The Important Decisions Rest With An Organization Far Too Big For The Common Man To Survey Or Comprehend.

Once Politics Become A Tug-of-war For Shares In The Income Pie, Decent Government Is Impossible.

Economic Control Is Not Merely Control Of A Sector Of Human Life Which Can Be Separated From The Rest; It Is The Control Of The Means For All Our Ends. And Whoever Has Sole Control Of The Means Must Also Determine Which Ends Are To Be Served, Which Values Are To Be Rates Higher And Which Lower, In Short, What Men Should Believe And Strive For.

If We Wish To Preserve A Free Society, It Is Essential That We Recognize That The Desirability Of A Particular Object Is Not Sufficient Justification For The Use Of Coercion.

The Mischievous Idea That All Public Needs Should Be Satisfied By Compulsory Organization And That All The Means That Individuals Are Willing To Devote To Pubic Purposes Should Be Under The Control Of Government, Is Wholly Alien To The Basic Principles Of A Free Society.

When It Becomes Dominated By A Collectivist Creed, Democracy Will Inevitably Destroy Itself.

The Younger Generation Of Today Has Grown Up In A World In Which In School And Press The Spirit Of Commercial Enterprise Has Been Represented As Disreputable And The Making Of Profit As Immoral, Where To Employ A Hundred People Is Represented As Exploitation But To Command The Same Number As Honorable.

We Have Indeed At The Moment Little Cause For Pride: As A Profession We Have Made A Mess Of Things.

If I Am Not Mistaken, Psychology, Psychiatry And Some Branches Of Sociology, Not To Speak About The So-called Philosophy Of History, Are Even More Affected By What I Have Called The Scientistic Prejudice, And By Specious Claims Of What Science Can Achieve.

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

I Regard It In Fact As The Great Advantage Of The Mathematical Technique That It Allows Us To Describe, By Means Of Algebraic Equations, The General Character Of A Pattern Even Where We Are Ignorant Of The Numerical Values Which Will Determine Its Particular Manifestation.

Mathematical Equations

..where Effective Competition Can Be Created, It Is A Better Way Of Guiding Individual Efforts Than Any Other... Regards Competition As Superior Not Only Because It Is In Most Circumstances The Most Efficient Method Known But Even More Because It Is The Only Method By Which Our Activities Can Be Adjusted To Each Other Without Coercive Or Arbitrary Intervention Of Authority.

Individual Effort

Should Our Moral Beliefs Really Prove To Be Dependent On Factual Assumptions Shown To Be Incorrect, It Would Be Hardly Moral To Defend Them By Refusing To Acknowledge The Facts.

It Is Neither Necessary Nor Desirable That National Boundaries Should Mark Sharp Differences In Standards Of Living, That Membership Of A National Group Should Entitle To A Share In A Cake Altogether Different From That In Which Members Of Other Groups Share.

The Social Sciences, Like Much Of Biology But Unlike Most Fields Of The Physical Sciences, Have To Deal With Structures Of Essential Complexity, I.e. With Structures Whose Characteristic Properties Can Be Exhibited Only By Models Made Up Of Relatively Large Numbers Of Variables.

Socialism Can Only Be Put Into Practice Only By Methods Which Most Socialists Disapprove.

We Know, In Other Words, The General Conditions In Which What We Call, Somewhat Misleadingly, An Equilibrium Will Establish Itself: But We Never Know What The Particular Prices Or Wages Are Which Would Exist If The Market Were To Bring About Such An Equilibrium.

The Attitude Of The Liberal Towards Society Is Like That Of The Gardener Who Tends A Plant And, In Order To Create The Conditions Most Favorable To Its Growth, Must Know As Much As Possible About Its Structure And The Way It Functions.

[socialistic] Economic Planning, Regulation, And Intervention Pave The Way To Totalitarianism By Building A Power Structure That Will Inevitably Be Seized By The Most Power-hungry And Unscrupulous.

The Conception That Government Should Be Guided By Majority Opinion Makes Sense Only If That Opinion Is Independent Of Government. The Ideal Of Democracy Rests On The Belief That The View Which Will Direct Government Emerges From An Independent And Spontaneous Process. It Requires, Therefore, The Existence Of A Large Sphere Independent Of Majority Control In Which The Opinions Of The Individuals Are Formed.

To Act On The Belief That We Possess The Knowledge And The Power Which Enable Us To Shape The Processes Of Society Entirely To Our Liking, Knowledge Which In Fact We Do Not Possess, Is Likely To Make Us Do Much Harm.

Is There A Greater Tragedy Imaginable Than That, In Our Endeavour Consciously To Shape Our Future In Accordance With High Ideals, We Should In Fact Unwittingly Produce The Very Opposite Of What We Have Been Striving For?

I Must Confess That If I Had Been Consulted Whether To Establish A Nobel Prize In Economics, I Should Have Decidedly Advised Against It.

Without A Theory The Facts Are Silent.

By The Age Of Fifteen, I Had Convinced Myself That Nobody Could Give A Reasonable Explanation Of What He Meant By The Word 'god' And That It Was Therefore As Meaningless To Assert A Belief As To Assert A Disbelief In God. Though This, In A General Way, Has Remained My Position Ever Since, I Have Always Avoided Unnecessarily To Offend Other People Holding Religious Belief By Displaying My Lack Of Such Belief, Or Even Stating My Lack Of Belief, If I Was Not Challenged.

I Have Come To Feel Strongly That The Greatest Service I Can Still Render To My Fellow Men Would Be That I Could Make The Speakers And Writers Among Them Thoroughly Ashamed Ever Again To Employ The Term "social Justice.

Capitalism Is Not Only A Better Form Of Organizing Human Activity Than Any Deliberate Design, Any Attempt To Organize It To Satisfy Particular Preferences, To Aim At What People Regard As Beautiful Or Pleasant Order, But It Is Also The Indispensable Condition For Just Keeping That Population Alive Which Exists Already In The World. I Regard The Preservation Of What Is Known As The Capitalist System, Of The System Of Free Markets And The Private Ownership Of The Means Of Production, As An Essential Condition Of The Very Survival Of Mankind.

Our Submission To General Principles Is Necessary Because We Cannot Be Guided In Our Practical Action By Full Knowledge And Evaluation Of The Consequences. So Long As Men Are Not Omniscient, The Only Way In Which Freedom Can Be Given To The Individual Is By Such General Rules To Delimit The Sphere In Which The Decision Is His. There Can Be No Freedom If The Government Is Not Limited To Particular Kinds Of Action But Can Use Its Powers In Any Ways Which Serve Particular Ends.

Any Man Who Is Only An Economist Is Unlikely To Be A Good One.

The Confidence In The Unlimited Power Of Science Is Only Too Often Based On A False Belief That The Scientific Method Consists In The Application Of A Ready-made Technique, Or In Imitating The Form Rather Than The Substance Of Scientific Procedure, As If One Needed Only To Follow Some Cooking Recipes To Solve All Social Problems. It Sometimes Almost Seems As If The Techniques Of Science Were More Easily Learnt Than The Thinking That Shows Us What The Problems Are And How To Approach Them.

... That Order Generated Without Design Can Far Outstrip Plans Men Consciously Contrive

The [classical] Liberal, Of Course, Does Not Deny That There Are Some Superior People -- He Is Not An Egalitarian -- But He Denies That Anyone Has Authority To Decide Who These Superior People Are.

No Human Mind Can Comprehend All The Knowledge Which Guides The Actions Of Society.

Competition Means Decentralized Planning By Many Separate Persons.

While An Equality Of Rights Under A Limited Government Is Possible And An Essential Condition Of Individual Freedom, A Claim For Equality Of Material Position Can Be Met Only By A Government With Totalitarian Powers.

We Shall Never Prevent The Abuse Of Power If We Are Not Prepared To Limit Power In A Way Which Occasionally May Prevent Its Use For Desirable Purposes.

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.

The Successful Politician Owes His Power To The Fact That He Moves Within The Accepted Framework Of Thought, That He Thinks And Talks Conventionally. It Would Be Almost A Contradiction In Terms For A Politician To Be A Leader In The Field Of Ideas. His Task In A Democracy Is To Find Out What The Opinions Held By The Largest Number Are, Not To Give Currency To New Opinions Which May Become The Majority View In Some Distant Future.

The History Of Government Management Of Money Has, Except For A Few Short Happy Periods, Been One Of Incessant Fraud And Deception.

The Problems Raised By A Conscious Direction Of Economic Affairs On A National Scale Inevitably Assume Even Greater Dimensions When The Same Is Attempted Internationally. The Conflict Between Planning And Freedom Cannot But Become More Serious As The Similarity Of Standards And Values Among Those Submitted To A Unitary Plan Diminishes.

Personally I Prefer A Liberal Dictator To Democratic Government Lacking Liberalism.

Freedom Can Be Preserved Only If It Is Treated As A Supreme Principle Which Must Not Be Sacrificed For Particular Advantages.

It Is Not Difficult To Deprive The Great Majority Of Independent Thought. But The Minority Who Will Retain An Inclination To Criticize Must Also Be Silenced....public Criticism Or Even Expressions Of Doubt Must Be Suppressed Because They Tend To Weaken Pubic Support....when The Doubt Or Fear Expressed Concerns Not The Success Of A Particular Enterprise But Of The Whole Social Plan, It Must Be Treated Even More As Sabotage.

We Must Not Forget That … Monetary Policy All Over The World Has Followed The Advice Of The Stabilizers. It Is High Time That Their Influence, Which Has Already Done Harm Enough, Should Be Overthrown.

Through The Inevitable Mismanagement Of Resources And Goods At The Disposal Of The State, All Forms Of Collectivism Lead Eventually To Tyranny.

Planning Leads To Dictatorship Because Dictatorship Is The Most Effective Instrument Of Coercion And The Enforcement Of Ideals And, As Such, Essential If Central Planning On A Large Scale Is To Be Possible.

It Is Not The Source But The Limitation Of Power Which Prevents It From Being Arbitrary.

The Advantage Of A Free Market Is That It Allows Millions Of Decision-makers To Respond Individually To Freely Determined Prices, Allocating Resources - Labor, Capital And Human Ingenuity - In A Manner That Can't Be Mimicked By A Central Plan, However Brilliant The Central Planner.

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.

Economic Transactions Between National Bodies Who Are At The Same Time The Supreme Judges Of Their Own Behavior, Who Bow To No Superior Law, And Whose Representatives Cannot Be Bound By Any Considerations But The Immediate Interest Of Their Respective Nations, Must End In Clashes Of Power.

Unlike The Rationalism Of The French Revolution, True Liberalism Has No Quarrel With Religion, And I Can Only Deplore The Militant And Essentially Illiberal Antireligionism Which Animated So Much Of Nineteenth-century Continental Liberalism. ... What Distinguishes The Liberal From The Conservative Here Is That, However Profound His Own Spiritual Beliefs, He Will Never Regard Himself As Entitled To Impose Them On Others And That For Him The Spiritual And The Temporal Are Different Sphere Which Ought Not To Be Confused.

The Great Aim Of The Struggle For Liberty Has Been Equality Before The Law.

[t]hose Who Are Willing To Surrender Their Freedom For Security Have Always Demanded That If They Give Up Their Full Freedom It Should Also Be Taken From Those Not Prepared To Do So.

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 Guiding Principle That A Policy Of Freedom For The Individual Is The Only Truly Progressive Policy Remains As True Today As It Was In The Nineteenth Century.

Road To Serfdom

If Socialists Understood Economics, They Wouldn't Be Socialist.

We Must Shed The Illusion That We Can Deliberately 'create The Future Of Mankind'

Future Of Mankind

I Use Throughout The Term 'liberal' In The Original, Nineteenth-century Sense In Which It Is Still Current In Britain. In Current American Usage It Often Means Very Nearly The Opposite Of This. It Has Been Part Of The Camouflage Of Leftish Movements In This Country, Helped By Muddleheadedness Of Many Who Really Believe In Liberty, That 'liberal' Has Come To Mean The Advocacy Of Almost Every Kind Of Government Control.

The Word "truth" Itself Ceases To Have Its Old Meaning. It Describes No Longer Something To Be Found, With The Individual Conscience As The Sole Arbiter Of Whether In Any Particular Instance The Evidence (or The Standing Of Those Proclaiming It) Warrants A Belief; It Becomes Something To Be Laid Down By Authority, Something Which Has To Believed In The Interest Of Unity Of The Organized Effort And Which May Have To Be Altered As The Exigencies Of This Organized Effort Require It.

It Is One Of The Saddest Spectacles Of Our Time To See A Great Democratic Movement Support A Policy Which Must Lead To The Destruction Of Democracy And Which Meanwhile Can Benefit Only A Minority Of The Masses Who Support It. Yet It Is This Support From The Left Of The Tendencies Toward Monopoly Which Make Them So Irresistible And The Prospects Of The Future So Dark.

Independence Of Mind Or Strength Of Character Is Rarely Found Among Those Who Cannot Be Confident That They Will Make Their Way By Their Own Effort.... Indeed, When Security Is Understood In Too Absolute A Sense, The General Striving For It, Far From Increasing The Chances Of Freedom, Becomes The Greatest Threat To It.

It Is True That The Virtues Which Are Less Esteemed And Practiced Now--independence, Self-reliance, And The Willingness To Bear Risks, The Readiness To Back One's Own Conviction Against A Majority, And The Willingness To Voluntary Cooperation With One's Neighbors--are Essentially Those On Which The Of An Individualist Society Rests. Collectivism Has Nothing To Put In Their Place, And In So Far As It Already Has Destroyed Then It Has Left A Void Filled By Nothing But The Demand For Obedience And The Compulsion Of The Individual To What Is Collectively Decided To Be Good.

With The Exception Only Of The Period Of The Gold Standard, Practically All Governments Of History Have Used Their Exclusive Power To Issue Money To Defraud And Plunder The People.

The Freedom That Will Be Used By Only One Man In A Million May Be More Important To Society And More Beneficial To The Majority Than Any Freedom That We All Use.

Unless We Can Make The Philosophic Foundations Of A Free Society Once More A Living Intellectual Issue, And Its Implementation A Task Which Challenges The Ingenuity And Imagination Of Our Liveliest Minds, The Prospects Of Freedom Are Indeed Dark. But If We Can Regain That Belief In Power Of Ideas Which Was The Mark Of Liberalism At Its Best, The Battle Is Not Lost.

It Is Possible For A Dictator To Govern In A Liberal Way. And It Is Also Possible For A Democracy To Govern With A Total Lack Of Liberalism. Personally I Prefer A Liberal Dictator To Democratic Government Lacking Liberalism.

The Effect Of The People's Agreeing That There Must Be Central Planning, Without Agreeing On The Ends, Will Be Rather As If A Group Of People Were To Commit Themselves To Take A Journey Together Without Agreeing Where They Want To Go; With The Result That They May All Have To Make A Journey Which Most Of Them Do Not Want At All.

The Progress Of The Natural Sciences In Modern Times Has Of Course So Much Exceeded All Expectations That Any Suggestion That There May Be Some Limits To It Is Bound To Arouse Suspicion.

This Means That To Entrust To Science - Or To Deliberate Control According To Scientific Principles - More Than Scientific Method Can Achieve May Have Deplorable Effects.

Scientific Method

In No Other Field Has The World Yet Paid So Dearly For The Abandonment Of Nineteenth-century Liberalism As In The Field Where The Retreat Began: In International Relations. Yet Only A Small Part Of The Lesson Which Experience Ought To Have Taught Us Has Been Learned.

Unlike Liberalism, With Its Fundamental Belief In The Long-range Power Of Ideas, Conservatism Is Bound By The Stock Of Ideas Inherited At A Given Time. And Since It Does Not Really Believe In The Power Of Argument, Its Last Resort Is Generally A Claim To Superior Wisdom, Based On Some Self-arrogated Superior Quality.

To Rest The Case For Equal Treatment Of National Or Racial Minorities On The Assumption That They Do Not Differ From Other Men Is Implicitly To Admit That Factual Inequality Would Justify Unequal Treatment, And The Proof That Some Differences Do, In Fact, Exist Would Not Be Long In Forthcoming. It Is Of The Essence Of The Demand For Equality Before The Law That People Should Be Treated Alike In Spite Of The Fact That They Are Different.

He Will Therefore Have To Use What Knowledge He Can Achieve, Not To Shape The Results As The Craftsman Shapes His Handiwork, But Rather To Cultivate A Growth By Providing The Appropriate Environment, In The Manner In Which The Gardener Does This For His Plants.

In The United States, Where It Has Become Almost Impossible To Use "liberal" In The Sense In Which I Have Used It, The Term "libertarian" Has Been Used Instead. It May Be The Answer; But For My Part I Find It Singularly Unattractive. For My Taste It Carries Too Much The Flavor Of A Manufactured Term And Of A Substitute. What I Should Want Is A Word Which Describes The Party Of Life, The Party That Favors Free Growth And Spontaneous Evolution. But I Have Racked My Brain Unsuccessfully To Find A Descriptive Term Which Commends Itself.

It May Indeed Prove To Be Far The Most Difficult And Not The Least Important Task For Human Reason Rationally To Comprehend Its Own Limitations. It Is Essential For The Growth Of Reason That As Individuals We Should Bow To Forces And Obey Principles Which We Cannot Hope Fully To Understand, Yet On Which The Advance And Even The Preservation Of Civilization Depend.

Everything Which Might Cause Doubt About The Wisdom Of The Government Or Create Discontent Will Be Kept From The People. The Basis Of Unfavorable Comparisons With Elsewhere, The Knowledge Of Possible Alternatives To The Course Actually Taken, Information Which Might Suggest Failure On The Part Of The Government To Live Up To Its Promises Or To Take Advantage Of Opportunities To Improve Conditions--all Will Be Suppressed. There Is Consequently No Field Where The Systematic Control Of Information Will Not Be Practiced And Uniformity Of Views Not Enforced.

To Combat Depression By A Forced Credit Expansion Is To Attempt To Cure The Evil By The Very Means Which Brought It About; Because We Are Suffering From A Misdirection Of Production, We Want To Create Further Misdirection -- A Procedure Which Can Only Lead To A Much More Severe Crisis As Soon As The Credit Expansion Comes To An End.

Our Freedom Of Choice In A Competitive Society Rests On The Fact That, If One Person Refuses To Satisfy Our Wishes, We Can Turn To Another. But If We Face A Monopolist We Are At His Absolute Mercy. And An Authority Directing The Whole Economic System Of The Country Would Be The Most Powerful Monopolist Conceivable…it Would Have Complete Power To Decide What We Are To Be Given And On What Terms. It Would Not Only Decide What Commodities And Services Were To Be Available And In What Quantities; It Would Be Able To Direct Their Distributions Between Persons To Any Degree It Liked.

The More The State "plans" The More Difficult Planning Becomes For The Individual.

A Society That Does Not Recognise That Each Individual Has Values Of His Own Which He Is Entitled To Follow Can Have No Respect For The Dignity Of The Individual And Cannot Really Know Freedom.

I Am Convinced That If The Market System Were The Result Of Deliberate Human Design, And If The People Guided By The Price Changes Understood That Their Decisions Have Significance Far Beyond Their Immediate Aims, This Mechanism Would Have Been Acclaimed As One Of The Greatest Triumphs Of The Human Mind.

The Task Of The Political Philosopher Can Only Be To Influence Public Opinion, Not To Organize People For Action. He Will Do So Effectively Only If He Is Not Concerned With What Is Now Politically Possible But Consistently Defends The "general Principles Which Are Always The Same." In This Sense I Doubt Whether There Can Be Such A Thing As A Conservative Political Philosophy. Conservatism May Often Be A Useful Practical Maxim, But It Does Not Give Us Any Guiding Principles Which Can Influence Long-range Developments.

Guiding Principles

It Is No Accident That On The Whole There Was More Beauty And Decency To Be Found In The Life Of The Small Peoples, And That Among The Large Ones There Was More Happiness And Content In Proportion As They Had Avoided The Deadly Blight Of Centralization.

The Chief Difference [between Totalitarian And Free Countries] Is That Only The Totalitarians Appear Clearly To Know How They Want To Achieve That Result, While The Free World Has Only Its Past Achievements To Show, Being By Its Very Nature Unable To Offer Any Detailed "plan" For Further Growth.

Justice, Like Liberty And Coercion, Is A Concept Which, For The Sake Of Clarity, Ought To Be Confined To The Deliberate Treatment Of Men By Other Men.

We Must Shed The Illusion That We Can Deliberately "create The Future Of Mankind." This Is The Final Conclusion Of The Forty Years Which I Have Now Devoted To The Study Of These Problems

We Must Raise And Train An Army Of Fighters For Freedom.

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 Rarely Remembered Now That Socialism In Its Beginnings Was Frankly Authoritarian. It Began Quite Openly As A Reaction Against The Liberalism Of The French Revolution. The French Writers Who Laid Its Foundation Had No Doubt That Their Ideas Could Be Put Into Practice Only By A Strong Dictatorial Government. The First Of Modern Planners, Saint-simon, Predicted That Those Who Did Not Obey His Proposed Planning Boards Would Be 'treated As Cattle'.

Nobody With Open Eyes Can Any Longer Doubt That The Danger To Personal Freedom Comes Chiefly From The Left.

Human Envy Is Certainly Not One Of The Sources Of Discontent That A Free Society Can Eliminate. It Is Probably One Of The Essential Conditions For The Preservation Of Such A Society That We Do Not Countenance Envy, Not Sanction Its Demands By Camouflaging It As Social Justice, But Treat It, In The Words Of John Stuart Mill, As 'the Most Anti-social And Evil Of All Passions.'

We Know: Of Course, With Regard To The Market And Similar Social Structures, A Great Many Facts Which We Cannot Measure And On Which Indeed We Have Only Some Very Imprecise And General Information.

Liberty'''.that Condition Of Man In Which Coercion Of Some By Others Is Reduced As Much As Possible In Society

There Can Be Little Doubt That Man Owes Some Of His Greatest Successes In The Past To The Fact That He Has Not Been Able To Control Social Life. His Continued Advance May Well Depend On His Deliberately Refraining From Exercising Controls Which Are Now In His Power.

The Idea That Human Kind Can Shape The World According To Wish Is What I Call The Fatal Conceit

...the Case For Individual Freedom Rests Largely On The Recognition Of The Inevitable And Universal Ignorance Of All Of Us Concerning A Great Many Of The Factors On Which The Achievements Of Our Ends And Welfare Depend.

We Certainly Do Not Regard It As Right That The Citizens Of A Large Country Should Dominate Those Of A Small Adjoining Country Merely Because They Are More Numerous.

There Exists No Third Principle For The Organisation Of The Economics Process Which Can Be Rationally Chosen To Achieve Any Desirable Ends, In Addition To Either A Functioning Market In Which Nobody Can Conclusively Determine How Well-off Particular Groups Or Individuals Will Be, Or A Central Direction Where A Group Organised For Power Determines It.

The Credit Which The Apparent Conformity With Recognized Scientific Standards Can Gain For Seemingly Simple But False Theories May, As The Present Instance Shows, Have Grave Consequences.

You Can Have Economic Freedom Without Political Freedom, But You Cannot Have Political Freedom Without Economic Freedom.

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.

Social Justice Rests On The Hate Towards Those That Enjoy A Comfortable Position, Namely, Upon Envy.

By Giving The Government Unlimited Powers, The Most Arbitrary Rule Can Be Made Legal; And In This Way A Democracy May Set Up The Most Complete Despotism Imaginable.

The Germans Would Appear As The Disturbers Of Peace, As They Already Do To Some People, Merely Because They Were The First To Take The Path Along Which All The Others Were Ultimately To Follow.

Nothing Distinguishes More Clearly Conditions In A Free Country From Those In A Country Under Arbitrary Government Than The Observance In The Former Of The Great Principles Known As The Rule Of Law.

To Discover The Meaning Of What Is Called "social Justice" Has Been One Of My Chief Preoccupations For More Than 10 Years. I Have Failed In This Endeavour Or Rather, Have Reached The Conclusion That, With Reference To Society Of Free Men, The Phrase Has No Meaning Whatever.

The Chief Point We Must Remember Is That The Great And Rapid Advance Of The Physical Sciences Took Place In Fields Where It Proved That Explanation And Prediction Could Be Based On Laws Which Accounted For The Observed Phenomena As Functions Of Comparatively Few Variables - Either Particular Facts Or Relative Frequencies Of Events.

This Is The Constitutional Limitation Of Man's Knowledge And Interests, The Fact That He Cannot Know More Than A Tiny Part Of The Whole Of Society And That Therefore All That Can Enter Into His Motives Are The Immediate Effects Which His Actions Will Have In The Sphere He Knows.

Many Who Think Themselves Infinitely Superior To The Aberrations Of Nazism, And Sincerely Hate All Manifestations, Work At The Same Time For Ideals Whose Realization Would Lead Straight To The Abhorred Tyranny.

We Must Show That Liberty Is Not Merely One Particular Value But That It Is The Source And Condition Of Most Moral Values. What A Free Society Offers To The Individual Is Much More Than What He Would Be Able To Do If Only He Were Free. We Can Therefore Not Fully Appreciate The Value Of Freedom Until We Know How A Society Of Free Men As A Whole Differs From One In Which Unfreedom Prevails.

If Freedom Is To Flourish The Philosophic Foundations Of A Free Society Must Be Kept A Living Intellectual Issue And Its Implementation A Task Which Challenges The Ingenuity And Imagination Of The Liveliest Minds.

There Is All The Difference In The World Between Treating People Equally And Attempting To Make Them Equal.

Inflation Is Probably The Most Important Single Factor In That Vicious Circle Wherein One Kind Of Government Action Makes More And More Government Control Necessary. For This Reason All Those Who Wish To Stop The Drift Toward Increasing Government Control Should Concentrate Their Effort On Monetary Policy.

The Discussions Of Every Age Are Filled With The Issues On Which Its Leading Schools Of Thought Differ. But The General Intellectual Atmosphere Of The Time Is Always Determined By The Views On Which The Opposing Schools Agree. They Become The Unspoken Presuppositions Of All Thought, And Common And Unquestioningly Accepted Foundations On Which All Discussion Proceeds.

The Argument For Liberty Is Not An Argument Against Organization, Which Is One Of The Most Powerful Tools Human Reason Can Employ, But An Argument Against All Exclusive, Privileged, Monopolistic Organization, Against The Use Of Coercion To Prevent Others From Doing Better.

Unlike The Position That Exists In The Physical Sciences, In Economics And Other Disciplines That Deal With Essentially Complex Phenomena, The Aspects Of The Events To Be Accounted For About Which We Can Get Quantitative Data Are Necessarily Limited And May Not Include The Important Ones.

Conservatism Is Only As Good As What It Conserves.

It Is Because Freedom Means The Renunciation Of Direct Control Of Individual Efforts That A Free Society Can Make Use Of So Much More Knowledge Than The Mind Of The Wisest Ruler Could Comprehend.

Individual Effort

The Curious Task Of Economics Is To Demonstrate To Men How Little They Really Know About What They Imagine They Can Design.

In Any Society Freedom Of Thought Will Probably Be Of Direct Significance For A Small Minority. But This Does Not Mean That Anyone Is Competent, Or Ought To Have Power, To Select Those To Whom This Freedom Is To Be Reserved.

Freedom Granted Only When It Is Known Beforehand That Its Effects Will Be Beneficial Is Not Freedom.

Liberty Not Only Means That The Individual Has Both The Opportunity And The Burden Of Choice; It Also Means That He Must Bear The Consequences Of His Actions. Liberty And Responsibility Are Inseparable.

What Our Generation Has Forgotten Is That The System Of Private Property Is The Most Important Guarantee Of Freedom, Not Only For Those Who Own Property, But Scarcely Less For Those Who Do Not. It Is Only Because The Control Of The Means Of Production Is Divided Among Many People Acting Independently That Nobody Has Complete Power Over Us, That We As Individuals Can Decide What To Do With Ourselves.

Hayek Was Making Us Think Of The Productive Process As A Process In Time, Inputs Coming Before Outputs.

Trending Author

Bryce Courtenay

Robert Kiyosaki

Category