Medary.com

SECTION ONE: The Word:
St. Valentine. Banned in Saudi Arabia.

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

Most people find it difficult to admit that we do not possess moral standards which would enable us to settle these questions--if not perfectly, at least to greater general satisfaction than is done by the competitive system. Have we not all some idea of what is a "just price" or a "fair wage"? Can we not rely on the strong sense of fairness of the people? And even if we do not now agree fully on what is just or fair in a particular case, would popular ideas not soon consolidate into more definite standards if people were given an opportunity to see their ideals realized?

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.

While agreement on complete equality would answer all of the problems of merit the planner must answer, the formula of the approach to greater equality answers practically none. Its content is hardly more definite than the phrases "common good" or "social welfare." It does not free us from the necessity of deciding in every particular instance between the merits of particular individuals or groups, and it gives us no help in that decision. All it tells us in effect is to take from the rich as much as we can. But, when it comes to the distribution of the spoils, the problem is the same as if the formula of "greater equality" had never been conceived.

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

SECTION ONE: The Word:
According to the Beatles, the Word was love. But that's probably supposed to be tomorrow. Oh, well.

We spotted this deer just beyond our back fence, the other day at around dusk. He, or she, had worked his/her way down the utility easement about three houses, when I snapped this picture.

It's been a while since the last update--since October 28th, to be exact. Since then, Snookums and I have been on a long cruise, we've gotten through the holidays, and survived Super Bowl Sunday. The tale:

October 28: 228 pounds.

This past Wednesday, February 10th, at the official clinic visit: 224.2 pounds.

That's good.

Dr. Tague (yes, we actually met the doctor again this time) adjusted my supplements a bit, but overall was pretty happy. We talked about an ultimate weight-loss goal. I had been thinking about an even 200, but he said that with my particular body type, that would be really hard to do, and suggested 210 or 212, somewhere in there. I'm ok with that, too. So that's the goal! We'll call it 210.

That's 14.2 pounds to go. Two weeks? Three weeks? Four weeks? I don't know. But it's nice to be so close!

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

What socialism promised was not an absolutely equal, but a more just and more equal, distribution. Not equality in the absolute sense but "greater equality" is the goal which is seriously aimed at.

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

SECTION ONE: The Word:
Western Illinois 64, Oral Roberts 62. "That's why they play the games."

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

That a government which undertakes to direct economic activity will have to use its power to realize somebody's ideal of distributive justice is certain. But how can and how will it use that power? By what principles will it or ought it to be guided? Is there a definite answer to the innumerable questions of relative merits that will arise and that will have to be solved deliberately? Is there a scale of values, on which reasonable people can be expected to agree, which would justify a new hierarchical order of society and is likely to satisfy the demands of justice?

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 hate Democrats, leftists, collectivists, progressives, totalitarians (OK, I might easily be persuaded to hate the last one). I just think they fundamentally misunderstand the universe--and human nature. Leftists believe that it is possible to competently "plan" anything as large as a national economy.

But the fact is that human assumptions are always faulty. Mine are. Yours are. Everybody's assumptions are flawed--incomplete, at best--to a greater or lesser extent. The difference is, There are among us those who possess the arrogance of thinking that their assumptions should guide anything bigger than their own lives. This invites failure--in fact, it guarantees it. Reality is always bigger, more complex, more diverse, more chaotic than any human intellectual structure can totally interpret and model. Error is part of the human condition.

Leftists generally consider this a bug in the universe, and design elaborate social and governmental structures to eliminate error. Those on the "right" considers it a feature, and design simple social and governmental structures to accommodate the inevitable errors that occur.

Complex governmental and social solutions fail. Sooner or later, they fail. Simple governmental and social solutions are resistant to failure. That's how the universe works--in spite of how earnestly well-meaning people want the universe to work differently. This is why socialism always--ALWAYS fails, sooner or later. But this is why socialism always comes back, with a different name (progressivism, communism, fascism, "liberalism," communitarianism, "compassionate conservatism," etc.), with a slightly changed argument, throughout human history. Socialism, total or partial, by whatever name, is a seductive, attractive, beguiling idea that is based on a flawed assumption. It just won't work, no matter how good, reasonable, and good the people are who try to implement it.

It just won't work.