Hurtling Down the Road to Serfdom

· Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Government is taking us a long way down the Road to Serfdom. That doesn't just mean that more of us must work for the government. It means that we are changing from independent, self-responsible people into a submissive flock. The welfare state kills the creative spirit.

F.A. Hayek, an Austrian economist living in Britain, wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944 as a warning that central economic planning would extinguish freedom. The book was a hit. Reader's Digest produced a condensed version that sold 5 million copies.

Hayek meant that governments can't plan economies without planning people's lives. After all, an economy is just individuals engaging in exchanges. The scientific-sounding language of President Obama's economic planning hides the fact that people must shelve their own plans in favor of government's single plan.

At the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek acknowledges that mere material wealth is not all that's at stake when the government controls our lives: "The most important change ... is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people."

This shouldn't be controversial. If government relieves us of the responsibility of living by bailing us out, character will atrophy. The welfare state, however good its intentions of creating material equality, can't help but make us dependent. That changes the psychology of society.

I'll explore this tomorrow night on my Fox Business show, 8 p.m. Eastern (rebroadcast Friday at 10 p.m.).

According to the Tax Foundation, 60 percent of the population now gets more in government benefits than it pays in taxes. What does it say about a society in which more than half the people live at the expense of the rest? Worse, the dependent class is growing. The 60 percent will soon be 70 percent.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems to understand the threat: He's worries that "more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise. This is a road that Hayek perfectly described as 'the road to serfdom.'" (Tomorrow I will ask Ryan why, if he understands this, he voted for TARP and the auto bailouts.)

Kurt Vonnegut understood the threat of government-imposed equality. His short story "Harrison Bergeron" portrays a future in which no one is permitted to have any physical or intellectual advantage over anyone else. A government Handicapper General weighs down the strong and agile, masks the faces of the beautiful and distracts the smart.

So far, the Handicapper General is just fantasy. But Vice President Joe Biden did shout at the Democratic National Convention: "Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you." If he meant that we're all equal in rights and before the law, fine. If he meant government shouldn't put barriers in the way of opportunity, great. But statists like Biden usually have more in mind: They want government to make results more equal.

Two actual examples of the lunacy:

When colleges innovated by having students use Kindle e-book readers instead of expensive textbooks, the Justice Department sued them, complaining that the Kindle discriminates against blind students. The department also is suing the Massachusetts prison system because it makes prospective prison guards take a physical test. Since women don't do as well as men on that test, Justice claims the test discriminates against women.

Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute, says statism is becoming the "central organizing power in our economy," and that the battle between free enterprise and statism will shape our futures. He remains optimistic because a recent poll showed that 70 percent of Americans want free enterprise. I'm less sanguine. In that same poll, 54 percent of Americans said government should exert more control over the economy. Brooks discounts that, claiming people forget their "core values" during crises.

But he asks the right question: Do we want a culture of takers or makers? Ryan and Brooks say most people want "the American idea": freedom and self-responsibility. I fear they want a Mommy State to take care of them. What do you think?

The choice is crucial. If we continue down the Road to Serfdom, our destination will be a poorer society, high unemployment, stagnation and complacency.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM



Comments

Abu Nudnik

70% want free enterprise, 54% want more govt control. That means the job is simply to convince those 16% that the free enterprise they want cannot be achieve with more but only with less government control of enterprise. That's job one. I think that's achievable.

Posted February 10, 2010 at 12:41:44 AM


To Late

Sorry, the productive people in this country are already serfs. No one can deny that we are currently living the Marxist principle of From Each According To His Ability, To Each According To His Need. That is what "tax the rich" is all about. Taking from the "able" to give to the people who "need"; Sec8 housing, subsidized mortgages, food stamps, medicaid, free school lunches, and on and on.

Posted February 10, 2010 at 9:47:06 AM


Marcus

Maybe this is how the "slay the dragon" stories got started. Government has become a ravenous monster of huge proportions. We don't need to slay the beast but we damn sure need to put it on a diet and send it to obedience school...

Posted February 10, 2010 at 12:27:50 PM


Lexslexus

Some of the poorest countries in the world have full employment... it is standard of living that ultimately takes the brunt of a massive, welfare/warfare/fiat currency state.

Posted February 10, 2010 at 5:09:41 PM


MichaelSSEC

In truth, Mr Stossel, I think you're both on target. America is divided. Some say the country is divided in two -- Right vs Left (really right vs wrong). Evan Sayet and many others believe it's really divided in three: Right, Left and a variable middle that sometimes leans one way and sometimes the other.

Most of the country consistently comes down on the side of free markets, independence and personal responsibility. That's remarkable, since the Left controls the mainstream media, the entire federal government, academia at every level, and the entire entertainment industry including movies, music and publishing. Those institutions militate quite heavily in favor of Marxist approaches to every phase of society and the economy. With firepower like that, it's surprising that most Americans still prefer free markets.

Yet they do. Even the fickle middle usually leans right-of-center. That seems mysterious to some observers, but that's because they do not understand Capitalism. They take the "proctologist's view" of free market economics, seeing only the bad and ignoring the overwhelming good. Everyone else already knows why most people prefer Capitalism: it WORKS.

I don't remember who said it, but someone famously quipped: "Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world -- except for all the others." I've always felt that, while that's factually correct, it's a rhetorical loser because it dismisses all the amazing, overwhelming good we get from Capitalism. Free markets are a big, stinky, sweaty, profane mess that nevertheless works marvelously because it relies on people doing what's best because they WANT to. Contrast that with Socialism which fails because it depends upon people doing what is right because they're told to -- the first question they ask is, "what's in it for me?" and the answer is, "nothing."

Posted February 10, 2010 at 6:15:18 PM


Mike Sayre

I agree. When the wall came down on the USSR, the people, as a whole, after seventy years of communism were unable to think or act for themselves. The ones that prospered were those that came out of the black market and mafia organizations under the communist rule, for they were as close to entrepreneurs as the USSR had during those years. Even today, almost twenty years latter, as a whole they are slow to pull out of the government provides mentality.

The republic was engineered to be for the people by the people. We are truly losing our way.

Thank you for your honest insights.

Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:10:26 PM


MelP

"Any principle which secures food to the individual without the expenditure of work is injurious, and accompanied by the degeneration and loss of parts."..Henry Drummond 1892 Does it cause loss of spirituality in mankind?

"Any principle which secures the safety of the individual without personal effort or the vital exercise of faculty is disastrous to the moral character." ...Henry Drummond 1892 Do we really learn from history?

Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:24:37 PM


MelP

Misery and Suffering (poverty) is directly proportional to the funds set aside for its relief. Entitlements are causing people to become parasitic and will destroy the host! Let's not let our congressmen continue buying goodwill. The greatest charity is to give a person a good job and yes work is honorable. Let's also stop them from receiving entitlements voted for themselves only. Maybe they are the parasites? Let's clear foggy bottom? How? November 2010!

Posted February 15, 2010 at 2:37:13 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)



The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2010 Patriot Fund