Introduction to the analysis: This is an analysis on an economics book, but don't stop reading quite yet. This will be an in depth colloquial analysis for your enjoyment and insight. Though not an AP reading list book, there is still value in the analysis of literary devices used by the author in this particular piece. Enjoy. Page numbers taken from the Nook reading device.
The intended audience of F.A. Hayek was not who actually ended up reading his piece. He wrote the book for a few intellectual economists as a persuasive piece, using very extravagant language expecting the common man to simply pass it up. The common man in fact did pick it up, and it become common reading for the time period for economists, and even caused Hayek to write preludes to his American audience, as he had written specifically to the English, using the phrase "home country" referring to Englad.
"From monarchy, simple and structured, to democratic, relying on the people. Neither evil in the right hands. The nature of our civilization has been seen more clearly by its enemies than by most of its friends". (Page 78)
The book is started revealing an important viewpoint of the author, that there are no wrong forms of government. That success of a system can not simply be declared by its own people, but seen from the outside world.
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom. Socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." (Page 84)
This is actually a quote from another author, that Hayek decided to include. Being an opponent of socialism, Hayek is able to relate to the public good all the same by including this quote. Many times throughout the book he references outside economists in order to further back up his own points with evidence.
"...conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement "Socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counterdictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind. ""
Having recently fought against Germany and Italy, Hayek analyzes what caused the government to be able to become so corrupt. This particular quote is an allusion to the dictatorships which could be seen in both countries only years before this piece was published.
"In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing." (page 97)
In a logical progression, after going against too much government intervention, as in the case of socialism, he balances his views stating that government is indeed needed for balance. He structures his book in such a way that he presents his views, backs them up, then reacts to the possible counter arguments.
"The welfare and the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations." (page 110) " "The attempt to direct all economic activity according to a single plan would raise innumerable questions to which existing morals have no answer and where there exists no agreed view on what ought to be done."
One of Hayek's main arguments was the inefficiency of a government system which was one size fits all. That you can't take into account everybody's wishes to be happy. He applies ethos is this part of the book, noting that ethical conduct is indeed subjective to any given individual, and the more you bundle everyone's views together, the less of them you are actually retaining.
"It may well be true that our generation talks and thinks too much about democracy and too little of the values which it serves." (Page 120)
Hayek responds to Romanticism in a very pragmatic way. Democracy is often a term that is used to signify all the good in the world, or at least in America. To spread democracy is good. However, democracy in itself is not pure. It can be just as corrupt as any other form of government. Instead he analyzes the pros and cons of what it brings to the individuals that are under its rule. Pure democracy in fact would always rule against the minority on the issue, even if they may be more informed about the given situation. Pure numbers aren't always correct.
"The ultimate ends of the activities of reasonable being are never economic." (Page 134)
As a pure economist money is never the pure overall goal. This ends up being a very morale point brought up. That money is simply a tool used to promote work and competition in a world of scarce resources, not an end goal for any given individual. That money in itself has no value, but what money itself represents.
"We could, of course, reduce casualties by automobile accidents to zero if we were willing to bear the cost - if in no other way - by abolishing automobiles."
This statement responds to pathos often used by the argument for more safety regulations. Even in safer conditions are able to be produced, the rights and conveniences taken away for such safety may not be pragmatic in the long run. In giving more power to the government, you are therefore willing to give up more rights for what is best served in accordance to those ruling.
"There has never been a worse and more cruel exploitation of one class by another than that of the weaker or less fortunate members of a group of producers by the well-established which has been made possible by the "regulation" of competition." (Page 163)
This quotation is particularly interesting due to its outright protection of the upper class. That being able to control competition, and therefore the winnings for those who come out on top, leads to cruel exploitation of the system which is intended to promote winners of competition. In fact, when referencing the upper class, he uses the intense phrase "cruel exploitation".
"We must not deceive ourselves into believing that all good people must be democrats or will necessarily wish to have a share in the government." (Page 167)
Why doesn't a representative democracy always work? According the the author, the best people for the job will not necessarily want the job, and at that point you are simply voting for those who are viewed best in public opinion, and also have the drive and will to put forth the effort to obtain the spot to begin with.
"He will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently." (Page 170)
Another threat of democracy is that it is a pure numbers game. No matter how much you know about the process, your vote is equal to a person who knows nothing about that given situation. There are those in this system who will follow blindly no matter the actual issues, and that individual will be gaining free votes, not based on actual policy.
"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." (Page 181)This is a continuance on a previous chapter which discussed the morality of having a single system to rule over many different viewpoints. The book simply extends on this point, saying that a single system can have control, if it finds issues everybody believes in, or everybody can be convinced to believe in.
"It is most decidedly unwilling to sacrifice any of its demands to what are called economic arguments; it is impatient and intolerant of all restraints of their immediate ambitions and unwilling to bow to economic necessities." (Page 219)
This statement has a striking application to modern day economics in America. When spending isn't cut, and isn't going to be cut, necessities will be put aside, and the government will not run as well due to this. This point can be argued on either side, and constantly is, in today's world.
"Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us, and responsibility for the arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience, is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily recreated in the free decision of the individual." (Page 226)
Instead of having a government decide what is right and wrong overall, Hayek argues that individuals, while motivated by material circumstances, will live according to their own morals and create moral values on their own.
"It is neither necessary nor desirable that national boundaries should mark sharp differences in standards of living, that membership of a national group should entitle one to a share in a cake altogether different from that in which members of other groups share." (Page 232)
Near the end of the book he begins to talk about international economics. He views the system of countries as unneeded, and that all countries have the potential to be equal economically.
"But whatever we do, it can only be the beginning of a new, long, and arduous process in which we all hope we shall gradually create a world very different from that which we knew during the last quarter of a century."
(Page 246)
The conclusion ends with what is to come, whether good or bad, things will indeed change...
