CPAC: The Road to Serfdom

http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2933

Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" has influenced countless people on the subjects of collectivism and totalitarian rule.

Hayek was a world class Austrian Economist, debating and debunking early Keynesian theory. FA Hayek was a champion for liberty, classic liberalism, free market economics and limited government.

Hayek's Road to Serfdom: A Timely Reminder
Dr. Brough addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

 

The theory of Free Market Economics is absolutely clear. Central planing is almost always inefficient. Decentralization is the way to go. Dynamic Markets rewards entrepreneurs, and is a great motivator for innovation.

But after reading the essay, I had a few questions about this economic theory...

1. Markets are composed of local societies, just like the local government. Can you trust the local government to allocate resources optimally?

2. Can you trust markets to be fair and society to be corruption-free? Societies are almost always biased against minority groups.

3. What really is a free market? There has to be government oversight and regulation for the smooth functioning of any market, isn't it?

4. Do Free Markets have the power to prevail over Mafia groups? You must have read how the Mafia gets most of the contracts, coz no one dares to oppose them, or even to bid lower than them. I have seen Mafia in action.

I am sure Free Market economies are more superior than controlled economies, because in controlled economies, the losses are distributed amongst the tax-payers, and there is a huge chance of waste coz of inefficiency. BUT, you can't trust human beings, can you?

What does Mr. F. A. Hayek say about regulation? Self-regulation? Government regulation?

 

Thanks for this buddy, makes for some very interesting reading.

 

It is a great theory... I believe someone (in the government) should run a simulation on a Super-computer to find out if it actually feasible.

 

This is for you. Some more reading. I really, really like Robert Higgs. He's a very intelligent man.

http://mises.org/story/2749

Sorry, I wanted to reply back to this sooner, but got busy, and this needs a long response (which I can't even give right now).

But to keep the discussion going...

1. It's a lot easier to change a local government than a federal one. You can certainly trust a local government to allocate better than a federal one, when it is locally staffed by the very people who their policies will effect. Nothing worse, than someone in Washington telling everyone how to live from Wyoming to Florida.

2. This is a complicated question, because it needs a thorough answer. There is no fair. There is no such thing as crime free, corruption free. What the market does, is it gives you choices. Good choice and bad choices, but always choices. As far as minority rights, they have the same basic human rights as everyone else. Everyone faces bias. Even beautiful white people.

The difference is, when you have equal legal rights, equal opportunities (not mandated opportunities, but private property rights and entrepreneurial opportunities).

So as long as you don't screw with anyone else, they can't screw with you.

3. What oversight? You can provide oversight. You vote with your dollars anyway. You don't like a company or product, you switch to the competitor. This is what people do in politics when they feel a party has let them down, they change to the competitor. But in a free market, you have more than 1 competitor. You might have hundreds to choose from.

More often than not, government regulation is the problem, not the solution.

4. A lot of people confuse free market capitalism with anarchy or lawlessness. This is not true. In a free market society, private property rights are paramount. So no one can extort, steal etc. This would be against the law. Fraud would also be against the law. Violence, against the law.

What's different, is that the government doesn't try to steer the economy by attempting to predict what people want and possibly misdirecting resources. Or forcing people to produce something no one wants, and then forcing people to consume it.

When you ask, "can one trust human beings?", the question should be,

Who do you trust more? Yourself, or the government?

The government is made up of people, sometimes acting in your benefit, sometimes in the benefit of others, sometimes in the benefit of itself (the growth of the institution).

I'm a poor spokesman for this because I'm still learning every single day. I don't have the answers, but I do know a bunch of the questions.

 

Thanks for the link. I'll read it now...

I'd certainly like to make my own decisions, rather than depending on the government. It all makes sense. Thank you for helping me broaden my viewpoint.

 

Well shucks....

I have this simple idea in my head.

Here is you. --------------- Here is the government -------------- Here is liberty.

We want to cut out the middle man.

Here is you. --------------- Here is liberty.

So much nicer.