F. A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom is an excellent discussion on why liberty matters today more than ever.
“The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people…even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard…
– F. A. Hayek
The Road to Serfdom warns about the dangers of extensive government intervention and collectivism. Hayek’s central thesis asserts that greater state authority erodes individual liberty and general prosperity. As individuals grow reliant on the government or others, their ability to be self-sufficient and capable diminishes. This, in turn, necessitates that powerful elites maintain their dominance over the populace, a regrettable cycle observed repeatedly in history.
Global Elites and the Covid Hangover
Many crisis around the world are the result of unintended consequences by elites in government and other institutions. A prime example is the mishandling of the Covid crisis. The recent economic crisis is a direct consequence of global elites mishandling the Covid-19 pandemic. These leaders worldwide distorted science and weaponized the medical establishment to consolidate control over global economic systems and infringe upon individual liberties. Their actions successfully curtailed individual freedom, rather than eradicating the virus.
The repercussions include:
- Increased mental health issues such as suicide and anxiety.
- Surging inflation coupled with declining relative income.
- Decreased GDP and other indicators of economic performance.
- Falling birth rates.
- Deterioration of educational standards.
- Rising crime and violence rates.
- Escalation of war, exemplified by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
- Increased poverty globally due to illogical government interventions.
While global elites did not invent the Covid-19 virus, they exploited it as a pretext to seize power and advance unrelated agendas, even removing leaders from office.
This is not an unprecedented situation. In the 1930s, economist F. A. Hayek cautioned against similar government schemes. His warnings were ignored, culminating in the Second World War. His seminal work, The Road to Serfdom (1944), remains pertinent today due to the resurgence of a global assault on personal liberty and free enterprise.
Parallels Between Today and the 1930s-1940s
Just as it did in the 1930s and 1940s, the world today confronts a widespread threat. In that era, fascism, socialism, and communism aimed to reshape the globe, posing a danger to individual liberties. These political and economic ideologies originated from centralized governments where ruling groups claimed to possess the ideal methods for governing the populace. A centrally controlled economy and a government established by design inevitably lead to an authoritarian system, where power becomes the sole justification for maintaining such governmental structures.
Currently, government planning elites operate under different labels, identifying as progressives, greens, globalists, and collectivists, often invoking science to support their positions. They show little interest in open discussion or differing viewpoints. Similar to the past, populations in Western nations like the United States, Europe, and Australia are seemingly accepting the growth of this leftist ideology. This raises the question of why the people are so easily misled, a concern addressed by F. A. Hayek.
The Road to Serfdom Still Matters
Hayek meticulously examines individual liberty and related ideas, drawing on history to analyze the interplay between those advocating for increased state control and those championing individual freedom and its impact on economic and social shifts. He elucidates how governmental control predictably and inherently culminates in totalitarian rule. Notable among his observations are: the fundamental origins of totalitarianism, the issue of emergency powers, the case of Germany, and the deceptive nature of collectivism.
1) Totalitarianism
The enduring relevance of Hayek lies significantly in his analysis of the fundamental origins of totalitarian regimes.
Hayek’s primary focus was on “planners” and “reformers” who drastically altered societies under the guise of collective benefit. He argued that socialism, communism, and fascism arose from governmental planning and reform initiatives. While terminology evolves, the underlying principles persist. The consequence of such centralization of power within governments and economies invariably leads to totalitarianism.
This pattern, evident in the 19th, 20th (specifically the 1920s and 1930s), and now the 21st centuries, begins with elites asserting the necessity of reforms to aid a specific population segment. Subsequently, they advocate for wealth redistribution for “the greater good,” necessitating governmental force to implement these plans. This trajectory inevitably leads to fascist, socialist, or communist control. These agendas aim for a society where collective welfare supersedes individual concerns, necessitating the suppression of any opposition to ensure universal participation.
Initiatives that start with the intention of aiding the disadvantaged and ensuring basic necessities like food and healthcare invariably evolve into a collectivist ideology. To maintain order, the government resorts to systemic oppression of individual liberties and stringent controls, characteristic of socialist, communist, or fascist systems. These systems inherently conflict with human nature, leading to popular resistance that necessitates the government adopting a totalitarian stance to endure.
2) Emergency Powers
Hayek was principally concerned with the use of war powers, acknowledging their necessity during existential threats like World War II. However, he observed that the industrial-military complex in the West persisted after the conflict, with the emergency powers granted to governments never being rescinded. In his view, this caused the Western alliance to increasingly resemble the totalitarian regimes it fought against.
The aftermath of Covid-19 reveals a similar pattern. The national debt has ballooned to $31 trillion, the CDC’s authority has expanded significantly, and public trust in the health system has eroded. Government bureaucracy has grown substantially, leading to a climate where questioning scientific pronouncements is often met with fear of reprisal. A large health industrial complex has emerged and appears to be a permanent fixture.
Hayek’s apprehension regarding emergency powers during World War II leading to excessive state control is now being realized in the present context.
3) Germany
Over seven decades, Germany transitioned from a highly free and educated nation to a fascist state. Traditional Western values like freedom, free trade, capitalism, and individualism were once prominent. However, within a single generation, a reversal occurred: Germans began to view these concepts as selfish and instead embraced government planning.
Hayek wrote the following:
“The crucial point of which our people are still so little aware is, however, not merely the magnitude of the changes which have taken place during that last generation but the fact that they mean a complete change in the direction of the evolution of our ideas and social order. For at least twenty-five years before the specter of totalitarianism became a real threat, we had progressively been moving away from the basic ideas on which Western civilization has been built. That this movement on which we have entered with such high hopes and ambitions should have brought us face to face with the totalitarian horror has come as a profound shock to this generation, which still refuses to connect the two facts. Yet this development merely confirms the warnings of the fathers of the liberal philosophy which we still profess. We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past. Although we had been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by Tocqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism. And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning that it scarcely occurs to us that the two things may be connected.”
These sentences should serve as a stark warning, revealing a potential enslavement to the very ideology being discussed. They chillingly mirror our current cultural decay, as Western civilization faces renewed threats and socialist ideologies gain traction. We must not allow the hard-earned wisdom of Western thought to perish during our time.
4) The Great Trick
To counter these deceptive tactics, we must ensure the next generation embraces two key principles: 1) laissez-faire economics, and 2) the fundamental right to individual liberty, limited only by the harm one inflicts on others. Without a widespread understanding of these ideas, freedom itself is at risk.
What do we do with Hayek in today’s world?
It has become clear that government responses to Covid were excessive globally. Consistent with Hayek’s principles, all Covid-related programs should be discontinued. Now that the panic has subsided, government intervention is no longer justified. Spending should return to pre-Covid levels, all programs created to combat the virus should be eliminated, and healthcare should once again be primarily managed by states and individuals.
Specifically, the budget for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should be reduced to pre-Covid levels. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should handle Covid vaccinations through its standard processes. The government’s “war on Covid” and all associated initiatives should cease.Health Care
The goal of universal healthcare, often through a single-payer system, has been a long-held aspiration for many politicians who favor centralized government. While the desire for affordable healthcare for all Americans is a given, opposition to single-payer systems aligns with Hayek’s philosophy for several key reasons:
- Reduced Individual Liberty: It would inevitably lead to greater government control and a corresponding decrease in individual freedom.
- Economic Concerns: The necessary increases in government spending and taxes to fund such programs represent a redistribution of wealth, taking from one portion of the population to provide for another.
- Inefficient Administration: Government agencies are less effective at managing programs compared to private enterprise, which, through competition and specialization inherent in free markets, is better equipped to achieve positive health outcomes.
Hayek would contend that the establishment of single-payer healthcare would ultimately lead to the suppression of dissenting opinions, an inherently undemocratic and illiberal outcome. A standardized, “one-size-fits-all” approach to medicine is detrimental to health, yet those who disagree would be compelled to conform.
In his final analysis, Hayek declares: “If in the first attempt to create a world of free men we have failed, we must try again. 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.”
Will the Road Ever End?
“The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.” – F. A. Hayek
A contemporary analysis of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom must consider two additional aspects. First, Hayek, similar to Orwell, recognized the dangerous manipulation of language, specifically the appropriation and redefinition of words, as a precursor to totalitarianism. Second, he cautioned conservatives against mirroring the tactics of the left.
The significance of language cannot be overstated. Conservative thinkers have observed a pattern of the left altering word meanings and inventing new terms to garner support for their ideologies. This tactic was prevalent in 1930s Europe during the rise of socialism and fascism, as well as during Mao’s revolution in China. Orwell masterfully depicted this in Nineteen Eighty-Four through the “Ministry of Truth” and the continuous revision of history to suit the state’s agenda.
This manipulation is evident today, with special interest groups seeking to redefine fundamental terms like gender, racism, and science.
The term “freedom” has been notably hijacked by socialists, who have twisted its meaning to imply “freedom from hardship.” The genuine concept of freedom is liberty, but for socialists, progressives, and globalists, it has been altered to suggest a life free from worry. This redefinition serves as a tactic to secure votes by promising unrealistic benefits.
Hayek argued that both the Left and the Right share a fundamental opposition to freedom and free enterprise. He stated that a “common hostility to competition and their common desire to replace it by a directed economy” effectively unites socialists of both political wings. This hostility extends to both economic and social spheres and is apparent in those who advocate for the surrender of property, money, rights, and independence for a perceived greater good, all in the name of rights.
Words like freedom are particularly susceptible to distortion. The allure of being “free from suffering, oppression, harm, etc.” acts as bait, leading those who accept it down a path toward government dependence, which is the very opposite of freedom.
The word “freedom” was recently featured on campaign materials of Democratic candidates in South Carolina. In two specific instances, involving a gubernatorial and a state house candidate, their campaign websites promoted increased spending, higher taxes, more programs, and additional reforms. While these candidates may be described in various positive ways, they are not proponents of freedom. Freedom entails less government intervention, lower taxes, fewer programs, and greater individual self-reliance and responsibility.
The claims made by these candidates represent clear misrepresentations. This type of linguistic appropriation is widespread. The appropriate response is to actively defend the accurate and honest definitions of basic words. Conservatives must remain firm on fundamental truths, including the principle that words have specific meanings that must be upheld.
Finally, caution should be exercised when using the term “liberal” to describe globalists, progressives, or members of the Democratic party. In its classical sense, this term is inapplicable because these groups often exhibit anti-liberty sentiments, seeking to redistribute wealth earned by hard-working individuals to consolidate their own power and appease others. We should not have allowed the left to misappropriate this term and should reclaim classical liberal thought as an integral part of the conservative movement.
A Warning to Conservatives
An interesting update, or point of clarity, comes from Hayek’s 1956 revised forward to the book. In defining the term “liberalism,” he observes:
“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 the leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that ‘liberal’ has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United State who truly believe in liberty would not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable terms 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.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly another way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservativism and there is danger in the two being confused. 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. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however; is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.”
Balance is crucial in many aspects of life, from physical health to personal pursuits and even governance. Just as equilibrium leads to positive results in our bodies, diets, work-life balance, investments, and parenting approaches, it is also beneficial in government.
According to Hayek, liberalism encompasses individual freedom, free markets, and other principles often embraced by conservatives.
This presents an opportunity to find a middle ground between elitism and the rigid conservatism described. A balance of core classical principles with open-minded classical liberal ideals could offer this path.
In essence, both global elites and unimaginative conservatives exhibit a closed-mindedness with totalitarian undertones, demanding unwavering conformity. Open-minded conservatives exist between these extremes. The majority in the United States are dedicated to the democratic republic and the foundational ideals of liberty and justice for all – inherently conservative values. Conservatives can achieve electoral success by upholding these principles while remaining receptive to classical liberal ideas such as liberty, the competition of ideas, free markets, and limited government.
This approach, avoiding the closed-minded and totalitarian inclinations that can infiltrate conservative politics, is the key to national prosperity, as demonstrated by the widespread victories of Reagan and Nixon.
For more book recommendations, visit the Bookshelf. You can purchase The Road to Serfdom here.