Revisiting Hayek and the Road to Serfdom
At dinner last evening, a friend commented, in essence:
Government could work if persons were willing to conform and comply [others might say submit and subjugate themselves] to the dictates of [a Nanny State] government.
He is among the class of persons, which [still] believes that government exists to serve the people. He presumes that the people might be prepared to commit themselves not to advance their own interests but to prioritize advancing the “Common Good” and “General Welfare,” however those things might be defined by either a controlling political class or electoral majority, both of which are certain to espouse and embrace self-serving actions.
The choice of the favored candidate is almost universally summarized as follows:
MY lying, morally fluid, and narcissistic egomaniac is better than YOUR lying, morally fluid, and narcissistic egomaniac, because mine does for ME and mine as opposed to YOU and yours.
In contrast to the liar, cad, charlatan, and carnival barker, who is Donald Trump. My friend offered his endorsements of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. However, he failed to distinguish the lifetime of lies spouted by the current President from those of the former President. My friend is likely not old enough to remember Biden having been unceremoniously booted from his first Presidential campaign as the result of series of lies and plagiarism. In the intervening years, Biden was not repentant of his lies, but he committed himself to being a “better” liar. Biden’s lies are no less prolific compared to Trump, but Biden’s deceptively “pleasing” lies are certainly more insidious.
By comparison, Trump is a “bad” liar, because everyone knows that he is lying. Biden followed in the footsteps of practiced and professional liars such as the Clintons — Slick Willy and HRC — and Biden’s mentor, Obama, who like Biden himself presents a personal history that is a work of fiction.
As to Elizabeth Warren, the whole “I’m no more than 1/1,024th Native American” fiasco, after trading on her alleged race and heritage for years in order to advance her professional career, should itself be disqualifying.
Warren is what F.A. Hayek described in The Road to Serfdom, as a “Planner” in a Central Planning environment. [Biden could never be mistaken for having that level of general intellect or technical acumen.] Warren has technical expertise, but there is no assurance the she (or others of her ilk) will use that expertise judiciously or justly. [See “Big Book” Thought Experiment.]
Even if the actions of Planners benefit their constituents or favored special interest groups, what about the less favored and disadvantaged parties? Must they simply “conform and comply” even if the dictated path is contrary to their personal interests? Must individual interests give way to the collective? How are “collective” interests defined? Must those interests be fair, just, moral, and equitable, and by what standards?
Proponents of state action seek to engage the compulsory authority of the state and the coercive powers of government to compel by force (of law) the participation by another person or party in a relationship or transaction, which the reluctant party would not voluntarily participate and which benefits the proponent (usually to the detriment or disadvantage of the other party).
Government is not a mechanism, which engenders cooperation, collaboration, compromise, or consensus. Successful cooperative action requires mutualities of commitment, contribution, and benefit. Where those mutualities exist, parties will voluntarily come together to advance their common interests. In such cases, government intervention is likely superfluous, if not counterproductive. In the absence of those mutualities, however, no amount of government effort is likely to make the endeavor successful.
At its most basic, government is an instrument of brute force whereby an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) seeks to impose its self-serving will upon a reluctant minority (or other disfavored groups or individuals). Rarely, if ever, is there anything more moral or noble in the machinations of the state.
Political minions and government technocrats crave vicarious power, and they covet the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom. They are not nearly as smart or selfless as they would have to be in order to make government effective and efficient (much less fair, just, moral, and equitable). They are not immune to the inevitably corrupting influence of unrestrained power. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
The solution comes not in having the “right” person in the “right” office at the “right” time. The fix is in affirmatively restricting the powers afforded to the state and restraining government, so that the predictable efforts to abuse those powers are less likely to cause harm, loss, and destruction.
In the end, the candidates offered by the legacy political parties are not inherently “better” relative to each other. The legacy parties present themselves as competing forces forever engaged in a battle of inherent “Good” versus “Evil” incarnate. However, it is impossible at times to determine which is the Hero and which is the Villain.
They are accomplices and coconspirators in the abuses of power. Rather than opposing forces, they should be viewed as opposite sides of the same coin. Regardless of which party wins in a given election, it is America and her people which are the certain losers.
They seek a perpetual state of “war” (literal or metaphorical). We have heard that “all is fair in … war.” War can provide cover for all manner of inefficiency, waste, and destruction. A constant state of war seemingly justifies the expansion of government power toward omnipotence. This is how we get fruitless wars against nebulous and indomitable foes such as: Poverty, Disease, Drugs, Crime, Climate Change, and Hate.
Why should we expect the political classes to “solve” our problems? Why should we expect that they will work themselves out of the only jobs, for which they are remotely qualified? Why might they “cure” societal ills when they are paid handsomely to “treat” them for a lifetime, or several lifetimes?
F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” in summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QD75lUm51s
