Foreword

Friedrich A. von Hayek is one of the 20^th century=s greatest philosophers. While he is best known for his work in economics, he has made significant contributions in political philosophy and law. The publication for which Professor Hayek is most widely known is The Road To Serfdom written during World War II, whose condensed Readers Digest version is presented here along with what might be seen as his follow-up, The Intellectuals and Socialism, that was first published by the University of Chicago Law Review in 1949.

A focal point of The Road To Serfdom was to offer an explanation for the rise of Naziism that was popularly and erroneously seen as a character defect of the German people. Hayek differs saying that the horrors of Naziism would have been inconceivable among the German people a mere 15 years before Adolph Hitler=s rise to power. Indeed, Athroughout most of its history [Germany was] one of the most tolerant European countries for Jews.@¹ Other evidence against the character defect argument is that the writings of some German philosophers, like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and Friedrich Schiller served as inspiration for ideas about the liberal order later expressed in the writings of British philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and David Hume.

What happened in Germany? Hayek explains, AThe supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for forces which stand for everything they detest.@ Hayek=s explanation for the rise of Naziism was not understood and appreciated in 1944 and it is still not fully understood and appreciated today. Collectivism whether it is in Germany, the former Soviet Union, Britain or the United States makes personal liberty its victim.

How do we combat collectivism? Hayek provides some answers in The Intellectuals and Socialism. In a word or two, those who support the liberal social order must attack the intellectual foundations of collectivism. Hayek urges that an understanding of just what it is that leads many intellectuals toward socialism is vital. It is neither, according to Hayek, selfish interests nor evil intentions that motivate intellectuals towards socialism. To the contrary, they are motivated by Amostly honest convictions and good intentions.@ Hayek adds that it is necessary to recognize that Athe typical intellectual is today more likely to be a socialist the more he is guided by good will and intelligence.@ Joseph A. Schumpeter differed, seeing Hayek=s assessment as Apoliteness to a fault.@²

Hayek argues that the roots of collectivism has nowhere originated among working class people. Its roots lie among intellectuals - the people Hayek refers to as Asecond-handed dealers of ideas@ - who had to work long and hard to get working class people to accept the vision they put forth. The intellectuals or secondhand dealers in ideas to whom he refers are: journalists, teachers, ministers, radio commentators, cartoonists and artists whom Hayek says Aare masters of the technique of conveying ideas but are usually amateurs so far as the substance of what they convey is concerned.@

In 1949, when Hayek wrote The Intellectuals and Socialism, the second-hand dealers in collectivist ideas were a dominant force. He appeared to be pessimistic about the future of liberty because those who were on the conservative/free market side of the political spectrum were weak, isolated and had little voice. In 1947, Hayek along with several other distinguished free market scholars addressed some of the isolation by founding the Mont Pelerin Society. The purpose of the Society was to hold meetings and present papers and exchange ideas among like-minded scholars with the hope of strengthening the principles of a free society. The Mont Pelerin Society now has over 500 members worldwide, and can boast that eight of its members have won Nobel Prizes in economics.

Since Hayek wrote The Intellectuals and Socialism there has been no less than monumental change in the marketplace of ideas. In 1949, there was only one free market organization - The Foundation for Economic Education founded by Leonard Read. Today there are over 350 free market organizations in 50 countries, including former communist countries. The major media no longer has a monopoly on news and the dissemination of ideas that it once had. Network television faces competition from cable television. Talk radio has exploded. The Rush Limbaugh Show, that I have served as occasional substitute host for over 13 years, is carried on 625 different radio stations, satellite and over the internet reaching tens of millions of people worldwide each week. Much to socialist dismay, the most popular and successful talk radio shows are those hosted by conservative/free market hosts. Then there=s the electronic equivalent of conservative/free market journalists - bloggers - who are constantly at the ready to challenge and reveal news stories.

While there have been monumental changes in the idea marketplace, the last bastion of solidly entrenched socialism lies on college and university campuses around the world. Hayek argues that AIt is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the intellectual that he judges new ideas not by their specific merits but by the readiness with which they fit into his general conceptions, into the picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced.@

Professor Thomas Sowell puts the argument in another way that encompasses that of Hayek.³ Sowell says that there are essentially two visions of how the world operates - the constrained vision and the unconstrained. The constrained vision sees mankind with his moral limitations, acquisitiveness and ego as inherent and immutable. Under this vision the fundamental challenge that confronts mankind is to organize a system consisting of social mores, customs and laws that make the best of the human condition rather than waste resources trying to change human nature. It is this constrained vision of mankind that underlies the thinking and writings of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton among others.

By contrast, the unconstrained vision sees mankind capable of perfection and capable of putting the interests of others above his own. Sowell says that no other 18^th century writer=s vision stands in starker contrast to that of Adam Smith than William Godwin=s that he put forward in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Godwin viewed intention to benefit others as the essence of virtue that leads to human happiness. Benefits to others that arise unintentionally are virtually worthless. Sowell says, AUnlike Smith, who regarded human selfishness as a given, Godwin regarded it as being promoted by the very system of rewards used to cope with it.@⁴

In the last paragraph of The Intellectuals and Socialism, Hayek says, AUnless we [true liberals] can make the philosophic foundation of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, . . . the prospects of freedom are indeed dark.@ If Hayek is correct that neither selfish interests nor evil intentions motivate intellectuals towards socialism, there are indeed grounds for optimism. Education offers hope. We can educate them, or at least make others immune, to the errors of their thinking.

I think the strategy has at least two principle components. First, there is not a lot to be gained by challenging the internal logic of many socialist arguments. Instead, it is the initial premises that underlie their arguments that must be challenged. Take one small example. One group of people articulate a concern for the low-skilled worker and argue in support for increases in the minimum wage as a means to help them. Another group of people articulating the identical concern might just as strongly oppose increases in the minimum wage arguing it will hurt low-skilled workers.

How can people who articulate identical ends, as is so often the case, strongly defend polar opposite policies? I believe part of the answer is they make different initial premises of how the world works. If one=s initial premise is that an employer needs so many workers to perform a particular job, then enacting a higher minimum wage means that all the workers will keep their jobs. The only difference is that they will receive higher wages and the employer will earn less profit. Thus, enacting a higher minimum wage clearly benefits low-skilled workers. By contrast, if one=s initial premise is that there are alternative means to produce a product, and employers will seek the least-cost method of doing so, then raising the minimum wage will cause employers to seek substitutes such as automation or relocating overseas thereby reducing the amount of workers he hires. With that vision, one can have the interest of low-skilled workers at heart and oppose increases in the minimum wage because it reduces opportunities for low-skilled workers. If Hayek is correct in his assessment of socialists, it would appear that it is a simple task to empirically show that there are alternative methods of productions and employers are not insensitive to increases in the cost of workers.

The second part of the strategy is to make better, unassailable arguments for personal liberty. Any part of the socialist agenda can be shown as immoral under the assumption that people own themselves. The idea of self ownership makes certain forms of behavior unambiguously immoral. Murder, rape and theft are immoral simply because they violate a person=s property rights to himself. Government programs such as subsidies to farmers, bailouts for businesses, welfare or medical care for the indigent are also immoral for the same reason. Government has no resources of its very own. The only way government can give one person money is to first take it from another person. Doing so represents the forcible using of one person, through the tax code, to serve the purposes of another. That is a form of immorality akin to slavery. After all a working definition of slavery is precisely that: the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Well-intentioned socialists, if they are honest people as Hayek contends, should be appreciate that reaching into one=s own pockets to assist his fellow man is laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another=s pocket to do so is theft and by any standard of morality should be condemned.

Collectivists can neither ignore nor dismiss irrefutable evidence that free markets produce unprecedented wealth. Instead, they indict the free market system on moral grounds charging that it is a system that rewards greed and selfishness and creates an unequal distribution of income. Free markets must be defended on moral grounds. We must convince our fellow man there cannot be personal liberty in the absence of free markets, respect for private property rights and rule of law. Even if free markets were not superior wealth producers, the morality of the market would make it the superior alternative.

¹ Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1983), p. 86.

² Schumpeter, J. 1946. Review of The Road to Serfdom. Journal of Political Economy. (June): 269-270.

³ Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1987).

⁴ Ibid., p. 24.

(Revised March 31, 2005)