The Road to Serfdom - Readers Digest, April 1945 Condensation - 7 views
-
in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined.
-
Finn Sukkestad on 24 Sep 12I understand the connection he is trying to make between slavery and socialism but which is better or easier and less expensive for a government to run? I think that our "free democracy" is just a cheaper version of slavery which according the the article is one and the same as socialism. I feel like our government has found that efficiency point where people here are paid just enough to do what we want them to without having to actually care about the well being of the workers. Think about what it took for an american slave owner to keep his or her slave working. They had to make sure that the slave had a place to sleep, cloths, enough food to make sure they could do all the work they were asked to to. Today nobody worries about how their gardner or house cleaning is living, they pay them just enought to do teh work you asked and then they go back to wherever they can afford to live and eat what they can with the small amount of money they made from cleaning or mowing as many houses and lawns as the time in one day would let them. I am not saying that I am pro slavery I am just asking the question, which one provides more for the work?
-
-
we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?
-
Why would we want to produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for? Wouldn't we want what we have been working each and everyday for? Wouldn't we want what's best for us and not the complete opposite?
-
This also relates to "history repeats itself". I agree with the above. We are striving so hard to get to the oposite that we end up doing precisely what we didn't want to do.
-
I think the "history repeats itself" idea is spot on for what he was trying to say. And above that as well why would we producing the very opposite of what we have been striving for it does not fit in the grand scheme of things.
-
I agree that " history repeats itself". However, Kayla sawoski has a point about production, why would we go backwards.The problem was not the economy. It was fear. Fear was the main factor that lead to the production of this book(article). I simply do not find Friedrich's logic plausible. Clearly he has underestimated the United States ideology views towards a free economy. The United States is unifted as a nation based on princles of "Free Marktet based economy". He has underestimated the secular purpose of America and market exchange.
-
-
Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.
-
Having our own private area where we can go and express ourselves is very important. Humans need a place where we can be free to do as we please in the privacy of our own homes without society watching our every move. A means of privacy is very important to have generated in our government.
-
we sort of contradict this idea of private property because we invite people to come onto our property a lot of the time. For example, if you have a party you are inviting people you don't even know onto your property. There is no such thing as absolute privacy as the police have the ability to come into your home with a court order. There are ways around and reasons for everything.
-
I think this is true. I believe our generation is to worried about the means of freedom that we don't have that we forget the majority things that we do have. Private property is definitely one of the most important guarantees considering we are able to have our own home and everything we want belong in it without government interfering.
-
I agree with this statement. I think that our generation has forgotten the guarantee of freedom through private property because we live in a time where government tells us where we can build, what we can build and when we can build. The government also has the power to take away our property. When I was growing up I saw this first hand when many of my neighbors were forced out of their homes so that government buildings could be put up. Yes, they were compensated but they freedom of private property was taken from them.
-
i agree with both of these statements. I believe that it is important to have privacy generated in our government, but i also agree that it's not entirely true.
-
I think the line between privacy and public property has become very blurred in today's age. Not only that but I also agree with Alexis in that there no such thing as absolute privacy, except maybe in our own minds. Especially with the emergence of technology such as the internet and computers; whatever we do on there, there are people who could probably access it, no matter how cryptic or private we make it.
-
The private property issue is a tough one, especially when it comes to whether or not the government has the right to tell someone they have to sell their house/business for the sake of city planning. On one end, there is something incredibly unjust about telling someone they MUST sell their property for whatever you are going to offer them, and they can take the compensation or leave it, but either way they loose their property. This seems like a flagrant violation of their right to property. But at the same time, the government has an obligation to do what is best for the city, and if something needs to be built for the good of all, then I understand why they would feel like they have a right to make someone leave their home. But does the fact that it is for the "common good" make it ok to violate someone's constitutional rights? In this case, I would say no, but it is an interesting dilemma.
-
strong statement and so relevant. freedom is questioned all together not only with private property
-
- ...18 more annotations...
-
When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.
-
This statement after the private property statement above is important as people need private property in order to make decisions that are best for themselves, individually. If all the power is put into society as a whole, then some poeple will not be happy as the power rests with "society" or a single person. Individuals need to have the chance to conduct their own business and to be free, so that society as individuals have power over themselves and not be forced into something that they do not want. They might have to go along though as they are dependent on the powerful for their economic wellness in society.
-
Also when power is put into the hands of society there seems to be a chaos factor that grows. Yes, we need our privacy, but we also need governemnt regulation to keep complete chaos from happening.
-
Going off what Lauren said, that society needs a chance to have power. This sounds a lot like what we talked about last class in that the powerful people are powerful because they can manipulate society into believing they have a chance but really the fate is already planned out. But as long as society believes they have an option chaos will not break out.
-
-
Yet socialism was early recognized by many thinkers as the gravest threat to freedom
-
I find this to be true as socialism puts the power of individuals into the hands of "society" or one individual, which takes away each individual's freedom to decide what they want to do personally and that means each individual loses their freedom to advance in the world (as they choose what they want for themselves and not society as a whole), instead of being at the same level as everyone else of that society.
-
I agree, socialism would be a grave threat to freedom. It gives away an individual's right to be free and weaken the power of the people.
-
A lot of the people around me who are against Obama like to claim that he is a socialist, and they say it like its a bad word. What they are really saying is that they feel as though he is threatening their freedoms. After reading this article, I can see what they mean, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them.
-
-
Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
-
So basically socialism is aiming at taking away the freedom of the people to act as individuals by trying to get to them by taking care of their financial needs. The socialism idea may seem nice right then and there because it provides a sense of security, but the freedom taken away by not being able to decide how to deal with your private property in the long run, in my opinion, is a bigger deal than that sense of security for now.
-
-
They do not realize that to strive for socialism produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself.
-
This is interesting how the very society you try to improve is actually harmed when societies advance toward socialism. This can relate to the everlasting desire to improve and/or change our societies. However, when an advancement to socialism is made, society is harmed by the increasing lack of liberty. You think people would realize the harm that they are bringing to themselves. Perhaps they are too blinded by their negative connotations of other societies that socialism seems appealing since it differs from most other governments.
-
I think that most people are unaware of this fact and it should be made know. Most people want to have the most freedom that they can, however, they think they can have socialism as well. If people were to be shown the effects that socialism has and how it indeed destroys freedom, then people would start to have different views of the subject.
-
-
"Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation."
-
its funny how the two quotes about the book differ so greatly. at first it is called "sad and angry little book" but then 4 days later by the same newspaper, but different writers said "Friedrich Hayek has written one of the most important books of our generation" its amazing how the second review cause the book to sell so many more copies
-
I agree, public media usually changes it's mind and once it does, the general public agrees too.
-
I wonder if anyone noticed the sudden change of opinion from the New York Times? Isn't there some kind of editor to prevent stuff like that from happening?
-
I agree with Sarah and Caitlin. The general public are like lemmings. They can't really think on their own until someone says otherwise. And I think that is one of the problems we have today in society as well. No one really knows what is going on because they follow what they hear over and over again, as each opinion changes.
-
-
while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-
Its interesting to me that people could find socialism a good idea when in comparison with democracy. Just this line makes me nervous to be in a socialist country.
-
This sentence strikes me as odd because they consider both democracy and socialism to be seeking equality just in different ways. Democracy is clearly seeking freedom and socialism seeking power and control. It is interesting to think that they both seek equality among there people where in reality is socialism really producing equality?
-
-
the book eventually sold at least 230,000 copies in the U.S. Hayek went on a U.S. lecture tour, including prestigious places like Harvard University, and he decided he rather liked being a lightning rod for freedom.
-
This goes back to what Caitlin said about how the book changed from being widely unknown, to doing a complete 180 and becoming highly popular and getting such high attention from places such as Harvard University. Hayek also decided that he would use his publicity to not only his advantage, but the advantage of others.
-
-
Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything - the whole direction of the resources of the nation. The number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.
-
It's quite crazy how relevant this passage is to our modern congress in the United States. I think it is quite apparent that our current congress has not been working towards maximum efficiency. Congress has reached a point where one own's political party has become far too polarizing. But can congress truly work as a planning agency? Not all congressional histories have been wrought with inefficiency. As the Civil Rights Bill of the 1960s and the surplus of the 1990s demonstrate, congress does have the distinct power to work in way that can produce a common good for all Americans. I still believe in the democratic system. I still feel that, given the right circumstance, our congressional system can produce a level of good for the American people. Its not the system that's broken. Its the politicians that refuse to compromise that is harming us.
-
-
it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody
-
by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but infinitely heightened. An amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind
-
This statement is completely true and speaks to the importance of the dispersion of power. Centralized power blinds the holders to the needs of whom they have power over and taken power from. No single unit can possess the knowledge what is best for a society. Partly because the needs of the people within that society have variations among themselves and the greater power has no insight to those needs. The socialistic approach denies the people to which the power is held over their right to their personal liberties. Denying a group of people the right to autonomy creates resentment and distaste which steers away from allowing opportunity to peoples' "good life".
-
I agree with Miss Jensen, the socialistic leader might be attempting to 'plan' what's best for society, but often doesn't have an unhindered view of what's actually happening/what's best for the people.
-
-
-
-
Fascinating that in a country of free speech where all most forms of protest and talk can be tolerated people were so against publishing a book that thought differently. Perhaps they were afraid to endorse a dangerous idea like this because they were still so afraid of a "Red Scare" like reaction?
-
yeah I agree. I think people were afraid of controversy. crazy though how this book ends up being a huge hit. like it says some friends worked wonders for the book, and now rather than being controversial it is considered one of the most important books written.
-
-
-
This does not make any sense to me. Why should we produce the opposite of what we have been wanting to achieve. I believe that we should work towards our goals in life.
-
Hayek appears to be saying that with the "economic planning" the hope is that everyone will be happier and more production will be realized, but that the opposite is what happens..
-
-
-
planners must create power
-
It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking
-
In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the whole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
-
I think the argument he is making is a strong and interesting one. I've never quite heard it put like this but I can't say that I disagree with him at all. The former may be nothing but the better of two evils, which is not particularly desired, but the latter in this instance would be an envelopment of something much worse.
-
-
This article is a lot to digest because of the socialism analysis. The author suggests that going to a socialistic system would insinuate getting rid of freedom. Essentially socialism is a dictator party for the people that would abolish the monopolies that control the economy. The authors solution to socialism/ fascism is to re-embrace and exercise our constitutional rights.
-
I would agree with the part where he said that private property is our most important guarantee of freedom. By being able to own our own property and do with it as we please and there is really noone that can take it away from us once we own it we have the ultimate right to freedom right there.