Hayek claims that “By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable” (82-3). He contrasts this idea with that of the Rule of Law, which “implies limits to the scope of legislation: it restricts it to the kind of general rules known as formal law and excludes legislation either directly aimed at particular people or at enabling anybody to use the coercive power of the state for the purpose of such discrimination” (83). So, it appears that Hayek believes the government should be regulated by the Rule of Law, which protects the people because it never changes, the rules which are set out in it are “fixed” (72). Without a commitment to maintaining the Rule of Law, a government can create arbitrary laws whenever it sees fit, and this has the definite possibility of leading to public unrest. It’s hard to say where the US democracy falls in with Hayek’s philosophy. It’s been a while since I took government in high school, but it’s my general understanding that the government cannot just make and implement laws without a vote of the people—that’s pretty central to democracy. To do away with the Rule of Law, in my opinion, would be to do away with democracy, a government that is centered on the people. The scary thing about this argument that Hayek makes, however, is that the decline of the Rule of Law can be readily applied to the political situation in Germany when Hitler took over, which allowed him easy access to creating a totalitarian government.
I think the more exciting part of the Hayek reading was on economic control leading to totalitarianism. His theory that centralized control of the economy can lead to control in every aspect of an individual’s life is really interesting. Society is already set in a pattern of consumption, and big corporations already decide what it is that is consumed. The government plays a role in regulating what is consumed through agencies like the FDA, which looks out for the health of the people. The idea that if the government controls economic activities it will then be able to decide for us what is necessary is a crazy idea, but Hayek’s argument is surprisingly good.
You pointed out a part that I found really interesting as well! It gets even more confusing when you read about how incestuous the relationship between regulating entities and the industries they're supposed to protect us from is. I'm still wondering who is manipulating who, although it seems like plenty of large corporations/monopolies are taking advantage of economic control to limit our freedom. If money is freedom because it leaves us to determine what we buy, then making so many products compulsory certainly limits it. In one famous example, obesity and its related diseases are common in impoverished populations because the US subsides corn, and these subsides are fiercely protected by lobbyists.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, it's hard for me to accept his argument totally because I feel like I've benefited from some instances of "governmental control". It's weird to see how quickly that can be turned on its head though, like with the Planned Parenthood defunding drama.
I agree! The most fascinating aspect was Hayek's theory on economics and the notion as one of my political science professors put it, "money makes the world go round." You bring up an interesting point about the limitations posed when money may help someone start up a business but then the limitations arise as to how to spend it--the whole notion of need versus desire which Debord mentioned in his discussion on the spectacle. I found Hayek's reading really interesting and thought-provoking. We as a democratic nation would like to think that we have more freedoms from China (which is certainly true at least when it comes to technology/Google/family size) but then again we do have many bureaucratic agencies like the FCC. EPA, FDA all of which are theoretically there to regulate and watch out for the average person. However, all those large corporations and industry lobbies flood Capital Hill and the State legislatures to ensure that regulatory policies unfriendly to their agenda do not get passed. Not to mention all the campaign donations or the royalties that many politicians earn from investing in oil or pharmaceuticals. Sorry for the slight political rant! :)
ReplyDelete