Medary.com

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

. . . the more we try to provide full security by interfering with the market system, the greater the insecurity becomes; and, what is worse, the greater becomes the contrast between the security of those to whom it is granted as a privilege and the ever increasing insecurity of the under-privileged.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

There has never been a worse and more cruel exploitation of one class by another than that of the weaker or less fortunate members of a group of producers by the well-established which has been made possible by the "regulation" of competition. taken from those not prepared to do so. For this claim it is difficult to find a justification.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

SECTION ONE: The Word:
I don't want to be a political blog. I really don't. I want to post stories about weird animal stories and funny headlines and sports and travel and having fun and just living life.

But there are people out there who won't let me alone to do that.

So, I post political stuff.

They stop trying to screw up everyone's life, I stop the political stuff. (OK--I probably won't stop completely. But it'll scale way back.)

Meanwhile, Democrat Senators line up to oppose the President's scheme to bypass the filibuster and enact the "tyranny of the majority:"

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

It is possible, of course, to organize sections of an otherwise free society on (a military) principle, and there is no reason why this form of life, with its necessary restrictions on individual liberty, should not be open to those who prefer it. Indeed, some voluntary labor service on military lines might well be the best form for the state to provide the certainty of an opportunity for work and a minimum income for all. That proposals of this sort have in the past proved so little acceptable is due to the fact that those who are willing to surrender their freedom for security have always demanded that if they give up their full freedom it should also be taken from those not prepared to do so. For this claim it is difficult to find a justification.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

SECTION ONE: The Word:
I had a chest/head cold the past couple of days, so I decided to blow off the Whip. Sorry about that. I"m better now. Coughing up a lung right now, but that's probably TMI, isn't it.

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

In the sphere of executive work the problem of sanctions for negligence arises in a different but no less serious form. It has been well said that, while the last resort of a competitive economy is the bailiff, the ultimate sanction of a planned economy is the hangman.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

Certainty of a given income can, however, not be given to all if any freedom in the choice of one's occupation is to be allowed. And, if it is provided for some, it becomes a privilege at the expense of others whose security is thereby necessarily diminished. That security of an invariable income can be provided for all only by the abolition of all freedom in the choice of one's employment is easily shown. Yet, although such a general guaranty of legitimate expectation is often regarded as the ideal to be aimed at, it is not a thing which is seriously attempted. What is constantly being done is to grant this kind of security piecemeal, to this group and to that, with the result that for those who are left out in the cold the insecurity constantly increases. No wonder that in consequence the value attached to the privilege of security constantly increases, the demand for it becomes more and more urgent, until in the end no price, not even that of liberty, appears too high.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

The planning for security which has an insidious effect on liberty is that for security of a different kind. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their income, which although in no way deserved yet in a competitive society occur daily, against losses imposing severe hardships having no moral justification yet inseparable from the competitive system. This demand for security is thus another form of the demand for a just remuneration--a remuneration commensurate with the subjective merits and not with the objective results of a man's efforts. This kind of security or justice seems irreconcilable with freedom to choose one's employment.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

From The Road To Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek, 1944, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition, 1994, The University of Chicago Press.

There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not--or at least need not--require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market. Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skilful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have carefully to watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security. In any case, the very necessary efforts to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.

Excerpted under Fair Use for purposes of non-commercial education, discussion and comment. Any transcription or typographical errors are mine.

SECTION ONE: The Word:
This is Red Alert stuff, right here: Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed.

just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

. . .
Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.

This scares the hell out of me. It ought to scare the hell out of the "political class." They have become dangerously out of touch with the people who hold the ultimate power in the United States. They are in imminent danger of making dreadful, terrible mistakes. This is how people in power cause real, honest-to-God, bullets-in-the-air revolutions. The people don't cause revolutions. Idiots in power cause revolutions, by pushing the people past what they're willing to tolerate from their "leaders." That's basically what the Declaration of Independence is all about. We don't have "leaders" in this country. We have "representatives." There's a big difference--one which I am very afraid Barack Obama, in his . . . unorthodox upbringing and subsequent education and political career, has never learned. I would be delighted if he would prove me wrong.

It might be a really, really, really good idea for every single person in the "political class" in Washington (and in the misguided "mainstream" media) to sit down, shut up, and listen to what the majority of the people in this country are saying. Listen, and understand. Before somebody (in power) does something really, really, really stupid. (As opposed to the normal, run-of-the-mill stupidity we've become accustomed to from our politicians since the founding of the Republic . . . )

This is not politics as usual. This is people's lives, fortunes, and sacred honors (to recall another chilling phrase from the Declaration). The "political class" willrelent, or this could get very, very ugly indeed.

The New Deal party of "progressive" socialism is over in the United States. What comes next will either be painful, if we're lucky and smart, or it will be horrific, if we're not. The "political class" needs to focus on not making it worse. And "the hair of the dog" never works.