You should read this instead: https://rlo.acton.org/archives/1182...american-mobocracy-threatens-our-freedom.html
Yeah just finished up the introduction, which mainly gave context for the book and the larger (unfinished) project it was initially intended to be a part of. Also covered some of the major criticisms and misconceptions around Hayek and Road to Serfdom in particular. He seemed to have an interesting rapport with Keynes (whom I also need to read). Its weird, normally I'm not an avid reader, but stuff like this and Progress and Poverty I just chew through.are you gonna live blog your insights
Yeah Hayek even makes this point (I can track down the line) where he says that planning it’s not categorically something which inevitably leads to totalitarianism, but that planning which hinders competition (in areas where competition should be the main economic determinant) is what paves the way for a corrupt or authoritarian central power. Anyway, I agree with what your saying, and I’m pretty sure Hayek would too. The free market maximalists are wrong here, in my mind.in fact some degree of planning, even to construct classically "free" markets, such as financial or commodity markets, is absolutely necessary. markets do not arise from the aether, they must be created.
Haha that’s what I’m starting to think too. Mind you I’m only halfway through Road to Serfdom, and I haven’t read any other Hayek, but he’s not quite the free market maximalist he’s arguably painted as, he’s just really averted to economic planning, I think to a fault. He does say that such planning is only bad insofar as it hinders competition in areas where competition should be relied on as an unconscious guide for economic development, but I do think he overstates the risks associated with economic planning.in general, Hayek is better than his acolytes