Both here and at Crooked Timber, libertarianism is getting a bit of a run. So, can anyone find me a copy of Hayek’s prescient 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, which predicted that the policies of the British Labour Party (policies that were implemented after the 1945 election) would result in relatively poor economic performance, and would eventually be modified or abandoned, a claim vindicated by the triumph of Thatcherism in the 1980s? This book, and its predictive success, seem to play an important role in libertarian thinking.
Despite a diligent search, the only thing I can find is a book of the same title, also written by an FA von Hayek in 1944. This Road to Serfdom predicts that the policies of the British Labour Party, implemented after the 1945 election, would lead to the emergence of a totalitarian state similar to Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, or at least to a massive reduction in political and personal freedom (as distinct from economic freedom). Obviously this prediction was totally wrong. Democracy survived Labor’s nationalizations, and personal freedom expanded substantially. Even a defensible version of the argument (say, a claim that, Labor’s ultimate program included elements that could not be realised without anti-democratic forms of coercion, and that would have to be dropped if these bad outcomes were to be avoided) could only be regarded as raising a hypothetical, but unrealised, cause for concern.. Presumably, this isn’t the book the libertarians have read, so I assume there must exist another of the same title.
John Quiggin 
Maybe the book has been rewritten, along with the history surrounding it.
Sorry I can’t help out. I haven’t read either book. I have been meaning to but life gets busy.
What is going on here? Randism writ large?
Commentators, enjoying the inherited benefits of Enclosures, racist slavery, global colonialism and racist mass murder in Australia NOW want to criticise “coercion” ?????
The wealth and machinery that Hayek relied on to produce a book “The Road to Serfdom” was produced only by a long history of —- serfdom.
These vulgar libertarian people really have no understanding and always try to force everyone to live under capitalism and its unique forms of —– coercion.
Ayn Rand is a classic example.
Very good JQ.
Probably an even more egregious case is the claims made by those who support free markets uncritically, citing Adam Smith as an authority, and what is in the Wealth of Nations.
But, if one must be fair, one could say the same thing about the following pairs: {Keynesians, The General Theory), {evolutionary biologists, the Origins of the Species}, {Christians, the New Testament}.
Is this post sarcasm or Irony? I can never get the definitions correct.
In any case, tone in written communications is very hard to convey.
But I appreciated the post.
Well, here’s the book: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eTve6XEUbYIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=hayek&ots=zNRMRwLHis&sig=PhZUpyubCn8fzzI-UwRluoFtM5Y#v=onepage&q&f=false
As to the difference between the “two books”, I suspect most libertarians have not read it, but think they understand Hayek’s arguments by reading blog posts about it.
Like many climate deniers get their “science” from Andrew Bolt and WUWT 😉
I suggest that JQ follow up “Zombie Economics” with “It’s The Road 2 Serfdom, Sheeple!” – the complete text of the book referred to in the first paragraph, as deduced from internet postings about it.
Not sure what you mean reference to Darwin’s Origins? Surely one cannot question evolutionary science: multiple lines of evidence support and over 100 years of research support the theory. I don’t think you can mention “The Origins’ and “The New Testament” in the same breath 🙂
Piling on wrt to the claim about Origin of Species. It is a mistake – the mistake encapsulated in calling those who are not deluded about evolution ‘Darwinists’ – to think that evolutionary biology = Darwinism. Most evolutionary biologists haven’t read Origin, nor need they (do you think physicists need to read Newton?) Evolutionary theory has its origins in the synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, which immediately relegated Darwin to status of historically important. It is rare for a scientist to need to read anything more than five years old.
True, Neil, but these discussions are not about science but polemics – where the phrase “hide the decline” is far more important than the actual paper published or the data behind it. Hence, the continuing importance of Mann’s Hockey Stick paper and Darwin’s book or, indeed, deathbed confession.
See David Levy, Sandra Peart, and Andrew Farrant’s very nice work on the topic. Hayek’s argument required that British socialists preferred totalitarianism to capitalism; otherwise, they’d just retreat from planning (like they wound up eventually doing anyway). No wonder the Brits got so sniffy about it! European Journal of Political Economy, December 2005, “The spatial politics of F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom”.
Like Nostradamus, the prescience of ‘Road to Serfdom’ is highly dependent on interpretation, and a definitive prescient interpretation can only occur after the events. That has always been the way for all great religions, and is why belief’s ability to overcome unfolding (apparently contrary) evidence has always been the cornerstone of religion. I imagine it would be interesting to compile a history of various libertarian high priest’s (re)-interpretations of ‘Road to Serfdom’ as they have developed over the years, beginning, of course, with Hayek’s.
John,
Have you read the book? I’d be interested to hear your take on it.
Great to get the occasional perspective from across the Tasman. After all, New Zealand was the poster child for ‘world’s best practice’ libertarian policies long before libertarians were taking credit for that most recent ‘miracle’ economy – Iceland. Libertarian policies yield one success story after another.
Like libertarianism, Christianity is a great example of the triumph of hope and belief over reason and evidence. Christ was supposed to be the Messiah which at that time meant earthly King of the Jews leading them to great things. Instead he met an ignominious end, crucifixion.
Rather than treating this contrary evidence as a setback, extinguishing their hypothesis, the spin doctors stepped in. Christ was not intended to be an earthly saviour; he was, in fact, the son of God, and his crucifixion not a falsification, but all part of his divine plan, not for a kingdom in this world but the next. That is, all had previously been misinterpreted.
All rather bizarre but the great unwashed and easily led brought it. Not to leave the spin simply verging on the ridiculous, and not even tenuously credible, the messiah was then given an immaculate conception and virgin birth – one better than Leda’s impregnation by Zeus the Swan. Of course, the recycling of myths simply shows how environmentally friendly Christianity really is. And child friendly to boot.
No one seems to be suggesting to them “You’re just making all this stuff up!”
Hell! The Vatican has always had a policy of full disclosure and immediately turning any evidence of clerical wrongdoing over to the appropriate civil authorities.
Likewise, ‘The Road to Serfdom’ has been nothing but the definitive narrative through which to interpret the history of the last sixty-six years.
@Freelander: NZ’s not done too badly, all things considered. The 80s were a complete mess in terms of outcomes, but anybody who expected an entire economic system to be able to turn around on a dime and keep chugging without big transitional costs would be overly optimistic at best. We picked up nicely through the 90s and early 00s.
Open question for libertarians whether shock therapy followed by public opposition and some reversals (NZ) is preferable to slow and steady reform with little backtracking (Aussie).
I’m not sure that NZ could do fantastically well even if it had absolutely perfect policies, with perfect being defined only as “those policies most conducive to economic growth” (libertarian if you think those are best for growth, whatever else if not). Fixed costs matter a lot, and they here loom very large; agglomeration effects can never kick in properly with smallish cities. Internet has reduced some fixed costs but magnified others (something like Netflix has a minimum efficient size, for example).
@Eric Crampton
Yes. Hasn’t done too badly at all. Lets all go over there. I think Australia’s had it!
@Eric Crampton
Wait. Better still, lets all go to Iceland. Weathers fine, and you could wish for a sounder economy.
Sorry, you couldn’t wish for a sounder economy…
@Freelander: Umm… did you read what I wrote? NZ’s not doing great in absolute terms and it’s not doing great relative to Australia, but relative to its constraints, it’s not doing too badly. Imagine whatever perfect set of policies you think would make for the absolute bestest of whatever you think matters most, and NZ will still have a hard time doing well on aggregate stats given its constraints. We did very very well for a while with massively protected access to Britain – when the trade distortion went away, not so much.
I am not sure whether you know much about New Zealand.
But workers are extremely impoverished. Did you know that the minimum wage has only just be increased to just under $A 9.80 per hr.
You can easily fix up a capitalist economy by cutting wages.
I’ve written a fair bit about relative outcomes in NZ and Australia
Click to access Hazeldine&QuigginAJPS06Nomorefreebeer.pdf
Shorter Hazeldine&Quiggin: While NZ had some disadvantages relative to Australia, it compounded them through radical reforms that were in many cases misconceived, and almost always implemented in a ‘crash through or crash’ style, leading to many crashes.
@Chris Warren
But all my libertarian friends told me, for so many years, that an NZ Nirvana was just around the corner for that ‘tiger economy of the South Pacific’? Do you mean to say they weren’t right? (Must admit they did go a bit silent on NZ toward the second half of the nineties.) Oh. Duhem-Quine thesis. Policy experiment was right. Wrong outcome. Other factors to blame. Right….
@Jquiggin: Thanks.
I’m not convinced as yet that distance really is decreasing though, or at least not relatively. If all of the arguments for internet reducing costs of distance to nil were right, New York would have massively depreciated in value over the last 20 years relative to Kansas; instead, the opposite has happened. It’s starting to look more like all the internet tech is a complement to agglomeration rather than a substitute for it. That’ll affect both levels and rates.
Certainly something worth having more work done on though.
No one has mentioned Popper?
But yep, a great thread.
“It has frequently been alleged that I have contended that any movement in the direction of socialism is bound to lead to totalitarianism. Even though this danger exists, this is not what the book says. What it contains is a warning that unless we mend the principles of our policy, some very unpleasant consequences will follow which most of those who advocate these policies do not want.”
– F.A. Hayek, 1976 preface to “The Road to Serfdom”
HT: Catallaxyfiles
The unions in the UK made it as bad as a totalitarian state in the 70s and 80s.
@Rationalist
Too true, a friend of mine did about eight years in the Cornwall gulags. He hates fish and chips now.
Rationalist, had governments, particularly Thatchers and its big business supporters, been prepared to lead from the front, am sure the problems with unions in the seventies and eighties would have been a fraction of what some claim them to be.
But when Thatcher, announcing neoliberalism said, “there is no such thing as society”, everyone, including workers, knew that all bets were off and every rat for herself.
@Jim Birch
‘e were looky … when ah were but a wee lass, my auld man used to slice all the bairns in two wit’ bread knife and dance about on our graves singin’ allelujah …
You tell the yung kids ‘a today that an’ they wornt believe ya …
@Rationalist
No Thatcher made it into a jingoistic militaristic police state relying on anti-union provocation.
Fran, ” thoo shol ov a fishy.
On a little dishy,
When the bwoat comes in.”
@paul walter
Paul – beg to differ…Im just out of quarantine.
““there is no such thing as society”, everyone, including workers, knew that all bets were off and every rat for herself.”
you of course mean himself…and no Im not being sexist! I dont think us women stood much of a chance in the rat race judging by the income gaps that still abound.
I know I shouldnt be posting two posts in one thread in one day JQ…but can you excuse me? (because this is the obvious thread heading and I havent posted anywhere else)…
But I just heard the most interesting story from one of my foreign students…from Dubai. Apparently Dubia is some sort of strange society…even though you may have been born there (and all your relatives) ..that in itself does not justify citozenship. The economy is built as some sort of temple to construction and foriegn firms (needless to say foreign financial firms as there is no tax at all).
Carpenters earn the equivalent of $300 per year, despite the contruction booom. They can only feed themselves, but not house themselves. The suicide rate since the GFC has esaclated alarmingly amongst Dubai’s underclass of morlocks. The middle class has beeen decimated by the recnt GFC. With no government safety net they were the first victims of the GFC. Quite simply they were sacked as foreign firms desterted Dubai. The middle class no longer exists. Without the means to pay of their houses and cars – they simply drove to thye nearest airport and ambandoned their expensive cars there and fled to other countries. They could not pay off their houses and cant return.
But apparently all is wll in teh modern day version of Sodom and Gommorah. The government stayed very (extraordinarily rich because it owns a lot of the constructions), foreign firms are rtuening and already they find themsleves short of labour so Britans are flying in now because of labour shortages and because taxes are low and wages are high (except for the carpenters who are committing suicide at alarming rates).
The middle class was wiped out in one fell swoop. Now refugees who must start all over again but it appears the place is only for the very rich….and the extreme underclass. So I have a young man from Dubai who knows nothing about economics but he knows enough to know in his place of birth…not all is right.
I suppose this is what you call a free market…nice place, but I wouldnt want to live there.
Alice, am sad at your reprimand, when I was attempting to employ non gender specific terminology. Had I said “his”, feminists would surely have been offended that one did not include them as members of the workforce.
Back to the substance, yep, ALL sections of the workforce suffer under eco rationalism and women, the young and vulnerable or inexperienced always come off worst.
And it must have been unendurable hell for the wives of coalminers back in the eighties, even more than their men, when so much statist physical thuggery was employed against working communities.
@paul walter
All the same Paul…is our society with its taxes and social safety net…not far preferable to that of Dubai?
(modern day Sodom and Gomorrah IMHO with its apprently entirely tax free environment and its fly in fly out flexible workforce ….. except, of course for the desperate underclass of morlocks too poor to even leave..along with its “prepare to be decimated middle class – if things go wrong”?
All I can picture is the hundreds of luxury cars abandoned at the airport after the GFC and the homes abandoned…hundreds of jobs gone and lives ruined and assets lost to creditors with only the shirt on their back and a pocketful of savings to get them somewhere else…and let the creditors fight over their home).
With my big lefty heart all I wanted to do is acknowledge why this young man from Dubai, with no citizenship, in his late teens seeks an overseas qualification and perhaps the chance of immigration to here from a place called hell.
Id take him as an immigrant to Australia and Id send a free market adherent to Dubai to take his place.
As the British experience showed, FU Economics of the kind practiced by libertarians is fine for those doing the economising, not so fine for those being economised.
Neil, to disagree with you, I think that the overwhelming majority of practicing evolutionary biologists would ahve read the origin of the species. And I disagree that it’s been completely overtaken (implied overturned). In broad and general terms, Darwin’s central thesis is still very very solid. And you’re mistaken about the role of Mendel, he provided the mechanism, the tool, but not the theory or the deep understanding of what it meant.
Alice, #35:
“…is our society…not preferable to…Dubai?”
Depends.
Not if you are an Arab oil shiek with a Western armed and sponsored palace guard and an endless flow of circumcised women from Africa.
According to one party about THIS place recently, Daggett , of all people, is” a free market adherent”.
We should exchange him, perhaps for another former rightist militia commander, since these are apparently , most welcome here over recent years?
@paul walter
Dagget…a free market adherent? I know we get to listen to lots of distortions but if Dagget is a free market adherent…I am the Queen of England! Dagget is my best friend..after you Paul! I have to go…dont make me go over the limit!
Your Majesty…
Actually, after the debacle presented on 4 Corners this week about the Hunter Valley, I’d proffer Carmel Tebbutt as a candidate, on the basis of her negative response to calls for an inquiry.
Lots of new Bernie Bantons, all so unnecessary, but (NSW govt, this time) don’t want know this time, funny thing.
No photo ops one supposes, as it’s not election time.
In my view Thatchers statement about there being no such thing as society is a silly fallacy. Unless of course it is taken in context in the spirit in which it was intended in which case it is pure gold and even today it is easy to identify with her point. All she was really saying is that at the extreme collective responsibility is a complete oxymoron.
Her quote in context:-
Maybe it’s just me, TerjeP, but it still doesn’t sound all that good in context.
Yes, the
Thatcher family.
What a pack of freeloaders, Denis, Mark and Margaret.
Aren’t all politicians freeloaders, Paul? Someone told me there was an article in the paper recently showing that wages and admin costs in Australia amount to around $1m per Federal MP. What an absolute joke, on us the taxpayers, except it isn’t funny.
“that wages and admin costs in Australia amount to around $1m per Federal MP. ”
Umm, let’s see here. Most Australian electoral divisions have between 60,000 to 90,000 voters. Assuming the bottom bound, you’re looking at $16 dollars annually per person per year to pay for your representative in Canberra. And if you don’t like what they’re doing, you get a good opportunity to sack ’em every three years. Still cheaper and more accountable than their private sector oppos with a similar spread of responsibilities.
And remember what you call pork barrelling over there is bringing home the bacon in your electorate.
All of it is distinctly unfunny, Cynic.
Even criminals in jail don’t even cost this and they are not even in a subsidiary league, compared to politicians, as to dinkum criminality.
@Cynic
Aren’t numbers fun?
Apparently in the US the 25 top fund managers earn as much income as teachers who cater to 13,000,000 American students.
Numbers can be fun…
Just come from a US site that is claiming that one tally has the US now at the $trillion dollar mark for its vile intrusions into West Asia. Add to that all the money handed over to the sort of creatures Fran talks of, after 2007 and am put in mind of a figure some years old now, that suggested that most of the world would now have fresh drinking water, if only $50 billion could have been spent in the ‘nineties providing fresh water, including throughout the Third World.
Terje #41 “There is no such thing as society” (M Thatcher)
Thanks for giving the original of this, which I had not seen before.
Even allowing for context, I think she stands condemned from her own mouth almost as much as by any hostile paraphrase.
“There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation” So where does that leave children, the mentally ill, the lame and halt, folks who are ‘down on their luck’ etc etc. Selling matches on streert corners? The core feature of a civilised society is that we do stuff, out of a sense of community, for people who can’t pay us back.
And of course the internal contradiction – a prime minister of all people saying this. What did she think she was the prime minister OF? The UK? What is the UK? A group of people bound by communal ties larger than individual or family, perhaps?