Hayek, The Road to Serfdom - 14th session

October 5, 2020 (Mon), 14th session

Chapter 5. Planning and Democracy

Chapter 5, Planning and Democracy, begins with a quotation from Adam Smith.

(As I read this remark, left-wing politicians like Jaemyung Lee especially came to mind. And surely he is not the only one...)

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

— Adam Smith

The Road to Serfdom Reading Discussion, 14th Online Meeting: Mori, Rosha, Kangyoung Lee, Kongdubu

◉ Various conversations before we got into the main study session...

- Perhaps because of the lingering fatigue from the Chuseok holiday, people joined late for the 9 p.m. start, so instead of beginning right away, we spent some time chatting. There was also some prodding about the progress of the Jagongbi newsletter, followed by an explanation of how things were going.

- As a way to revitalize the Jagongbi meetings, someone suggested that, just as we read Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom on Mondays, we might open online lectures(?) or discussion groups on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings to read separate books. The idea was to set periods of several weeks each quarter, or for each book, with Jagongbi members taking turns serving as the person in charge and running the sessions. That way, people could join the discussion when time allowed, and even if circumstances prevented them from participating, they could still listen to others’ discussions like a radio program, making it beneficial in many ways and helping to energize the Jagongbi group.

- There was also the suggestion that if we only study, everyone might get bored, so it would be good to occasionally go hiking or play online games that several people could join. (Lately everyone seems to be getting too worn out, so there was a view that we need to make an effort to regain some energy...)

- The topic of self-driving cars also came up. We learned that autonomous vehicles do not mean handing over all driving to AI immediately; rather, as AI technology gradually develops, the form is one in which humans and AI work together in driving.

- Around 9:30 p.m., the four members began reading The Road to Serfdom.

◉ Page 105, command economy and a comprehensive common value system

- This section clearly defines collectivism, communism, and fascism alike as forms of totalitarianism. What these forms of totalitarianism have in common is that they deliberately organize society’s labor for social purposes. The core point is that they differ from liberalism or individualism in that they seek to organize society as a whole and its resources for a single purpose, and they refuse to recognize any independent sphere in which individuals’ purposes are accorded the highest respect.

- While reading this paragraph, we discussed how in socialist societies such as China or North Korea, even the choice of occupation does not reflect individual will and must instead follow state assignment. The testimony of Gilsun Kim, a former journalist who defected from North Korea, was also mentioned.

- There was discussion over whether a “perfect ethical norm” that could satisfy all members of society actually exists in real society, given that the “social purpose” or “common purpose” toward which social organization is supposed to aim is usually presented in vague terms such as “the common good,” “general welfare,” or “general interest.” For example, if a moving train had to choose between two tracks, one with 1 person ahead and one with 3 people, which track should it take? Can one readily say that it should choose the track with 1 person? What if that 1 person were your family member? Examples like this reminded us once again that no perfect ethical norm exists in reality. Many of the cases in Michael Sandel’s book Justice also lead one to similar reflections.

- Because no perfect ethical norm exists, any attempt to direct all economic activity according to a single plan is bound to raise countless questions. To answer those questions, a perfect ethical norm would be required, but since that is not possible in reality, a totalitarian society can hardly give individuals any satisfying answer.

- Looking back over human history, from primitive times onward, systems that coerced members of society were dominant. There were many forms of subordination and restraint telling people what they must not do. But as society became more civilized, such coercion diminished, and development moved in the direction of expanding the sphere in which individuals can act as they wish. Rather than issuing specific commands telling people what to do, restricting behavior through minimal limits or moral norms appears to be the direction toward a free society. This may or may not be an apt example, but human society has developed the awareness that people should not demean or disregard the disabled, and on that basis, what one should do for the disabled is left to each individual’s circumstances and free will.

- Unless there exists a “perfect ethical norm” capable of satisfying all members of society, we arrive at the conclusion that the totalitarian attempt to organize and mobilize members of society for a single purpose is itself contradictory.

◉ Page 106, individual ends and social ends (only the first two paragraphs)

- The probability that individual ends and social ends will coincide is extremely low. That is because it is impossible to understand the countless and highly diverse needs of the countless people competing to use available resources first, impossible to weigh the relative importance of each of those needs, and impossible for any one individual to take on such a task alone. Human knowledge is simply too limited, and the range of purposes any individual can care about is always only a tiny fragment compared with the needs of all humanity.

- The conclusion of today’s study is that there is no “perfect ethical norm”; organizing and mobilizing all individuals for social purposes is a totalitarian system; and if we are to become a free society, we must recognize an independent sphere for the individual.

If you would like to join the online reading group every Monday evening, we invite you to the open chat room at the link below.

https://open.kakao.com/o/gX3OIqtb

---

Original title: 하이에크 <노예의 길>-14차

Author: Jayujuui Ipmun Dokseotoronmoim

Date: 2020-10-05

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=reading01&pn=8&idx=23149