Excellent Introduction to Hayek’s Thought

Reading Hayek is always a pleasure. His Wincott Lecture on democracy, "general rules" as laws, and special interests is particularly clear and informative to this reader. However, it is depressing when his hypothetical solution is not even remotely possible to be put into place. Further, its construct, designed to defeat human nature, just punts the problem down the field.

FWIW, solutions, in the US at least, need to begin with where we are. then build incrementally from there. Part of it could be better leadership in the political class; part of could be plausibly in the hands of a philosophically "Hayekian" president who leads the executive branch. This happens in the normal electoral process.

Certainly some structural changes would be pleasing. But its kind of a waste of intellectual energy to focus on "de novo" solutions. We need practical people driving incremental improvement, not seeking perfection.

Just a simple observation.

I really can`t understand how someone can like "The Road to Serfdom". It is probably the worst book Hayek wrote and one of the worst books you could present and make an argument in favor of classical liberalism. "The Constitution of Liberty" is extremely good, but "The Road to Serfdom"? Please...the same argument that Popper made against Marx (historicism) could be made against "The Road to Serfdom". I personally think that is a book design for people with half a brain...ah, I understand it now why Limbaugh was promoting it and why his audience seemed to like it. They probably can`t grasp the knowledge of other (more difficult) Hayek books. Is simplicity in itself a problem? No, but in this case it is.

BTW I was talking about Law, Legislation and Liberty Vol. 1

Dan,

I liked Omnipotent Government by Mises, a book on the same theme, much more. But, however he did it, Hayek succeeded where Mises failed. And I'm grateful for whatever success our side can get.

I agree with you--that book is the most important book I've ever read.

Don and/or Russ,

I'd be interested in your reaction to Rush Limbaugh now promoting Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and apparently talking about it on his show. I admittedly don't listen to his show (I used to), but caught some of it earlier this week during holiday travels, and one of his callers said she was reading the book on his recommendation and was stunned at how clear and how applicable it is to today's debate.

Here's my fear: Limbaugh's promotion of Hayek could mean Hayek's ideas will be marginalized in any political debate (i.e. 'You're only bringing him up because you're one of Limbaugh's mind-numbed robots repeating what you heard him say; you aren't thinking for yourself').

Do you share any in that concern, or are you positive in the thought that Hayek's work is being publicized in this way and that he's getting a fresh read by lots and lots of people who had probably never heard of him before?

Thanks Don,

I have read some lines from this lecture through others work but wanted to read the full lecture.

Chandra

from my son,

"Hard to believe they deleted that...what a bunch of pricks."

Prof Boudreaux,

I hope you won't mine my interjecting this, but I think it's important that everyone here understand how fortunate we are to have this truly free forum,the only one I know of in the Austrian School today.

At the Austrian Economists blog, Profs. Rizzo, Boettke, Ebeling, O’Driscoll, and Horwitz were arguing for a looser definition of economics, opening it up to unlimited boondoggling and distraction, the sterile academician’s dream.

Ebeling especially tried to bring Mises into the argument on their side.

I countered with Mises’ actual words on the subject:

"The mathematical method must be rejected…It…divert(s) the mind from the study of the real problems…”

Did that sound like anyone countenancing a looser definition of economics, I asked.

And then concluded: Clear thinking depends on clear distinctions, and anyone advocating looser definitions is advocating looser thinking, the corruption of economics, and unilateral intellectual disarmament.

You may sign on to that, if you wish, but not implicate Mises in it.

He deserves better.

That commentary was deleted, and even my notation that it had been deleted was deleted, whereupon the undertakers of economics went triumphantly on their way.