Is political freedom limited by economic freedom? Notes on Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom."

- political economy

2-sentence summary:

Socialism is incompatible with freedom. It leads to fascism and dictatorship.

Observations and avenues for further investigation

  1. I wonder if Hayek mischaracterizes the socialist/egalitarian view on economic freedom and its relation to political freedom…If he underestimates the importance of / extent to which society must go to support every individual’s economic freedom in order to assure political freedom.
  2. Socialism seems “nice." We get to bathe in our good intentions, celebrate our niceness and shared values. Easy to imagine how this backfires.
  3. Investigate to what extent Hayek’s framework holds up…as it pertains to his argument that socialism really does end in fascism/dictatorship, and on the origins of monopoly. History as the laboratory to test the consequence of thought…
    1. Would be interesting to compare to T. Greer and Codevilla on “scale.”
    2. Draw out a timeline/chart out how the amount of scale has grown or diminished in a place
  4. He frames this piece in “problem-ish” terms…there is an opponent, an enemy to be overcome. Who is framing the growth / exercise of freedom using language that highlights opportunity, rather than obstacle and adversary? Would that be useful? (cf Conscious Leadership.)

Q&A-style notes

What is the real intellectual fault line?

So, what is good planning? Is he simply advocating ‘moderate’ planning, or a middle ground?

Why, theoretically, central planning leads to dictatorship

Decentralization especially important in a complex world

The origins of monopoly:

Important to assure basic economic security

Key excerpts and notes on political freedom and economic freedom: