I think this is the idea that Hayek was trying to convey when speaking of freedom. As the most valued right in the United States, I don’t think that people place the same level of respect on the unavoidable risk that comes along with it. The power that freedom gives people to craft their own success may eclipse their personal responsibility for failures, although they are of equal relevancy.
Curiously enough, freedom is not free, and the simple attempts of forcing it to be that way through “planning” actually sacrifices it for the sake of “economic freedom.” Said plans, in fact, cannot possibly promise such freedom to all parties in the first place, so the liberties most desired by people become the payment for the plans destined to destroy them.
The increased influence or ‘power’ that businesses have over people has brought citizens to believe the government should guide or even contain companies in order to protect their freedoms; however, the mere existence of the free enterprise system and the competition among these businesses is one of the biggest defenses to freedom that exists.
Businesses survive by filling the demand gaps of society, and considering the competing desires of citizens, each business carries out its own plan to meet those needs. Because of this, businesses are more likely to satisfy the desires of a larger population at once. Having multiple plans, therefore, increases freedom.
Choosing to follow only one plan by giving the government the means of production can only possibly fulfill a fraction of the population, leaving the rest to work towards a goal that doesn’t benefit them. It is the separation of power where true liberty lies, a process that can only be met by business, not socialism.
In addition to the simple existence of the free market as a benefit to society, businesses at their core have an important influence on people’s lives. Nevertheless, people still have the freedom and responsibility to choose what they invest in or purchase. On the other hand, a person can never go above the legal plans of the government, which can not only dictate what they purchase and when they can do so, but also extends to where people work, what they think, and even their recreational activities, consequently diminishing freedom.
I think the constitution is the most important document to defend the freedoms of Americans not because it defines the rights of the people and the limits of the government, but simply because it’s written. Citizens have a stable and pre-established document they can use to hold those in power accountable for their actions, so fraudulent behavior can be easily tracked and stopped.
The idea of socialism sounds appealing when spoken, but when it’s written, it falls apart. As Hayek mentions, the constant changes in the means of production make it impossible to place one solid, unwavering plan on paper, giving the government more power to do whatever they see fit according to the circumstances, and the people less power to keep them in check.
This is the point where socialism turns into totalitarianism, attacking the freedoms that it vowed to defend.
I found it interesting that for socialism to be successfully elected as the new system, it must appeal to the correct population. For those who have not had the opportunity to read Hayek’s works, to hear professors and professionals in business, to be exposed to the experiences of other countries, or otherwise receive a general education, it seems easier to support a government willing to bear all risk in exchange for a “few freedoms.”
I remember that in Venezuela, the heaviest support of the government came from those family members who had barely received a high school education, from the slums full of children who worked like any adult, and from those who had this unfaltering trust in the government, not in themselves.
I think the popularity of politicians like Bernie Sanders and even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez directly reflects on the level or even quality of education that Americans are attaining today. I think it’s important for people to be exposed to counterpoints of the sweet-sounding yet faulty plans that socialists propose, and the best place to do so is in schools and colleges. Without gullible citizens, socialism cannot rise.
Just because freedom comes with risk doesn’t mean that governments should restrain from protecting their citizens. As discussed with universal basic income, I don’t think people should bare the responsibility of covering their most basic needs and the risk of not being able to do so, especially in societies as advanced as the United States.
However, as comforting as it may sound that a greater power can guarantee a certain quality of life for all citizens, I don’t think that people should depend on the government to provide a certain standard of life. As Bastiat argued, this takes away from people’s responsibility to push for their desired life and puts them in a sort of “cruise control” toward the government’s desired goals.
