Posted on 02/25/2007 2:54:48 AM PST by Jacquerie
Planning and Democracy
Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.
It would be impossible for any mind to comprehend the infinite variety of different needs of different people which compete for the available resources and to attach a definite weight to each.
We can unfortunately not indefinitely extend the sphere of common action and still leave the individual free in his own sphere.
That planning creates a situation which it is necessary for us to agree on a much larger number of topics than we have been used to, and that in a planned system we cannot confine collective action to the tasks on which we can agree but are forced to produce agreement on everything in order that any action can be taken at all, is one of the features which contribute more than most to determining the character of a planned system.
The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be taken “out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts – permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.
And to make it quite clear that a socialist government must not allow itself to be too much fettered by democratic procedure, Professor Laski asks, “Whether in a period of transition to Socialism, a government can risk the overthrow of its measures as a result of the next election (is a question left unanswered)”.
Not only would a socialist government “take vast powers and legislate under them by ordinance and decree” and “suspend the classic formulae of normal opposition” but the continuance of parliamentary government would depend on its possession of guarantees from the conservative party that its work of transformation would not be disrupted by repeal in the event of its defeat at the polls.
It is important clearly to see that causes of this admitted ineffectiveness of parliaments when it comes to a detailed administration of the economic affairs of a nation. The fault is neither with the individual representative nor the parliamentary institutions as such but with the contradiction inherent in the task with which they are charged. They are not asked to act where they can agree, but produce to produce agreement on everything.
The delegation of particular technical tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process whereby a democracy which embarks on planning progressively relinquishes its powers.
The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.
Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done.
Parliament can, of course control the execution of tasks where it can give definite directions, where it has first agreed on the aim and merely delegates the working out of the details. The situation is entirely different when the reason for the delegation is that there is no real agreement on the ends, when the body charged with the planning has to choose between ends of whose conflict parliament is not even aware.
Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion.
Our point, however, is not that dictatorship must inevitably extirpate freedom but rather that planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible.
The clash between planning and democracy arises simply from the fact that the latter is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of economic activity requires.
The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. It is largely responsible for the misleading and unfounded belief that, so long as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, the power cannot be arbitrary. The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers we face.
It is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary. Democratic control may prevent power from becoming arbitrary, but it does not do so by its mere existence.
If democracy resolves on a task which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.
Hayek ping!
ping
Please add me to your list.
Thanks,
L
The unelected bureaucrat writing law, enforcing that law and judging the law is one of the primary indicators of a dictatorship.
The unelected bureaucrat is unaccountable to the citizenry and not subject to the democratic means of removal - the citizen's vote.
Furthermore, the social and natural resources bureaucracies attract the most hard-core ideological fanatics in the political spectrum. They are doctrinaire Marxists who believe themselves to be on a messianic mission to save the planet, guide people to utopia and punish those they consider ideological enemies.
America has never had more bureaucrats with more power than now. We are well on our way to a bureaucratic soviet style dictatorship. And until bureaucrats suffer real consequences for their actions, the march toward a total state controlling everything will continue.
Hayek Ping!
In an earlier chapter Hayek discusses the change in the people's attitude once they get used to central planning. The once proud, independent, freedom loving defenders of the Constitution can quickly be reduced to slaves.
Just as the forms of government (Senator, consuls, praetors, tribunes) under the Roman emperors were identical to those under the republic, our Constitution as continually misinterpreted by Scotus, will not protect our freedoms.
Hayek should be required reading, along with Whittaker Chamber's 'Witness'.
I will admit, 'Witness' is a lot easier to read, though!
We deal with unaccountable bureaucrats constantly.
I've never seen a more arrogant, undemocratic cult in my life.
The one measure we have in restraining these Marxists is our open meetings law. These bureaucrats constantly engage in illegal acts, such as holding public meetings in private to determine pay-offs to the various leeches - lawyers, engineers, smarxist planners, regional planning commssions - that attach themselves to these bureaucratic bodies.
The bureaucrats also engage in splitting up public meetings into groups - violating the quorum requirement - in order to shut down citizen voices and not allow people to hear concerns voiced by others.
Another trick is to hold unannounced meetings, violating the posting requirements.
Our open meetings law allows any citizen to challenge any aspect of a meeting in court. It also has penalties for throwing these Marxists in jail for repeated violations of the law.
I would urge everyone to study their state's open meetings law and start to go after these freedom hating communists.
Hayek was so right. Our current obsession of the government doing something about personal choice issues like smoking, obesity etc. is simply another step on the road to serfdom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.