When Did We All Become Serfs?

by Gina L. Diorio

Sixty-four years ago, economist, political philosopher, author, and professor F.A. Hayek published his classic political discourse, The Road to Serfdom. Written, in Hayek’s own words, as “a duty which I must not evade,” the work stands as a timeless warning of the dangers of believing one can exchange freedom for security while simultaneously preserving liberty.

“It was in no spirit of mockery,” Hayek writes in his preface to the 1956 edition, “that I dedicated it ‘To the Socialists of All Parties.’ It had its origin in many discussions which, during the preceding ten years, I had with friends and colleagues whose sympathies had been inclined toward the left….”

Although written amidst the destruction and horrors of World War II and intended for a British rather than American audience, Hayek’s words and the truths therein are perhaps more applicable here in the United States today than at any time or place in history.

In a message that spread across the world, Hayek writes a warning to all those who, regardless of their stated party, embrace socialism and its concurrent ideals of central economic planning. He warns of the inevitable consequences of such planning despite the good intentions with which men may implement it. And he laments the abandonment of “that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.”

Perhaps one of the most interesting portions of Hayek’s work, however, is his examination of the wording evolution that allowed the principles of socialism to take root and even thrive among a liberty-loving people.

Cases in point: “freedom” and “equality.”

First, freedom. Whereas “freedom” once denoted “freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached,” the “new freedom,” Hayek writes, “promised … to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us….” In essence, “[b]efore man could be truly free, the ‘despotism of physical want’ had to be broken, the ‘restraints of the economic system’ relaxed.”

In other words, this new freedom was not the liberty to determine one’s own destiny and back that determination with individual creative energy but rather a supposed guarantee of freedom from discomfort – which, incidentally, in many cases, our own choices produced.

Hayek continues: “Yet, although, the promises of this new freedom were often coupled with irresponsible promises of a great increase in material wealth,” this freedom would not come through the eradication of stinginess. Instead:

“[w]hat the promise really amounted to was that the great existing disparities in the range of choice of different people were to disappear. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth. But the new name gave the socialists another word in common with the liberals [classically defined], and they exploited it to the full.”

Second, equality. “Democracy and socialist have nothing in common but one word: equality,” Hayek writes, quoting Alexis de Tocqueville. “But notice the difference: while democracy seeks quality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Some might claim this reference to servitude to be a radical assertion given today’s “enlightened” liberal philosophy. Yet when individual ingenuity and entrepreneurship are restrained by burdensome regulations and taxation policies, are not the individuals thus burdened in at least some sense forced into servitude to provide the “new freedom” achieved only through the equal distribution of wealth?

Undoubtedly, some readers have already discounted everything written above simply due to the use of one word: socialism. After all, occurrences and statements throughout the recent presidential campaign provided the mockery one will endure upon conjuring up the image of socialism – warranted though it may be.

Milton Friedman recognized this temptation to reject Hayek’s argument simply on wording grounds, and in his 1971 introduction to the German edition of The Road to Serfdom, he writes:

The same collectivist fallacies are abroad and on the rise today, but the immediate issues are different and so is much of the jargon. Today we hear little of ‘central planning,’ of ‘production for use,’ of the need for ‘conscious direction’ of society’s resources. Instead the talk is of the urban crisis – solvable it is said only by vastly expanded government programs; of the environmental crisis – produced it is said by rapacious businessmen who must be forced to discharge their social responsibility instead of ‘simply’ operating their enterprises to make the most profit and requiring also, it is said, vastly expanded government programs; of the consumer crisis – false values stimulated by the selfsame rapacious businessmen seeking profits instead of exercising social responsibility and of course also requiring expanded government programs to protect the consumer, not least from himself; of the welfare or poverty crisis – here the jargon is still ‘poverty in the midst of plenty,’ though what is now described as poverty would have been regarded as plenty when that slogan was first widely used.

… Unfortunately, the relation between the ends and the means remains widely misunderstood.

America just elected a president committed to “spreading the wealth,” “tackling poverty,” and “promoting a healthy environment” – through government programs.

The election is over. The path has been set. Until voters have the opportunity to speak again, America can only hope and pray against the tragedy foreseen by Hayek– that “what was promised to us as the Road to Freedom was in fact the High Road to Servitude.”

###

Gina L. Diorio, M.A. is a full-time freelance writer. Please visit her website at www.LibertyWritingSolutions.com.