OT Political Stuff: Embrace the Liberal Label!

" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "
George Washington

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
equally
.. . . . .

Give it a rest Phil, OK? You are SO boring.

-Ken

Am I, Ken? Really? I'm sorry if I bore you. I'll try to be more exciting
in the future.

Everybody will be back to racing talk in a week or two. Till then, relax
and don't read threads that plainly state that they're off topic ("OT").
I've actually found the political discussion here better than in the
political forums. Funny, but cyclists - especially road cyclists - tend to
have greater conversational and intellectual capabilities than other sport
participants. Maybe our ability to afford such an expensive sport has
something to do with educational levels.

BTW, you do have a nice website...lots of cool photos.
"k.j.papai" wrote in message
...

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that
all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
equally
. . . . .

Give it a rest Phil, OK? You are SO boring.

-Ken

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...

I've actually found the political discussion here better than in the
political forums. Funny, but cyclists - especially road cyclists - tend
to
have greater conversational and intellectual capabilities than other sport
participants.

That's true. I was suprised just how many bright well educated folks there
were in this group when I came. It might be true that those who can afford
to travel and race are better educated then those who can't. Basically maybe
along the same lines of those who can afford to attend Universities and
elite colleges and those who cannot, but I was surprised how crafty and hot
tempered this bunch is. There are some pretty cool dudes here, and the only
female constant is Heather. She an excellent buffer to the group. Off topic
threads have tendency to grow and that is why they should be discourged in
favor of on topic threads. I've been gulity of being in a few but I (never)
start them.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "

Dumbass,

You likely have your head up your ass. (Again, you've got most of the
population as your company, if it makes you feel any better.)

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html





"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable
term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term
of opprobrium." -- Hayek

"...there was the deliberate deception practiced by American socialists in their
appropriation of the term ‘liberalism’. As Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it
(1954:394): ‘As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.’" -- Hayek

"As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the
intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom
as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society."
-- Friedman


"...true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in
the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable
society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and
power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism;
and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical
propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal
to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if
this world is to become a better place." -- Hayek


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Friedman preface

p xi



INTRODUCTION



2. (Added in 1994.) I use the term liberal, as Hayek does in the book,
and also in his Preface to the 1956 Paperback Edition (p. xxxv below), in
the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free mar-
kets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in
which it means almost the opposite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Hayek PREFACE 1956


pp xxxv-xxxvi


PREFACE 1956


The fact that this book was originally written with only
the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously
affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there
is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to
forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term
“liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which
it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it
often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part
of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country,
helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really be-
lieve in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy
of almost every kind of government control. I am still
puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate
this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted
by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.
This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the con-
sequent tendency of many true liberals to describe them-
selves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believ-
ers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes
make common cause with the conservative, and in some cir-
cumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any
other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liber-
alism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger
in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a neces-
sary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in
its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies
it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with
its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical pro-
pensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusion-
ment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe
that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a
better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is
bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean
on the power of government for the protection of privilege.
The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of
all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and
original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights
to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fatal Conceit, hayek


pp 110-111

Terminological Ambiguity and Distinctions among Systems of Coordination

Elsewhere we have tried to disentang]e some of the confusions caused
by the ambiguity of terms such as ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ (see
Appendix A), of ‘genetic’ and ‘cultural’ and the like, and as the reader
will have noticed, I generally prefer the less usual but more precise term
‘several property’ to the more common expression ‘private property’.
There are of course many other ambiguities and confusions, some of
them of greater importance.
For instance, there was the deliberate deception practiced by
American socialists in their appropriation of the term ‘liberalism’. As
Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it (1954:394): ‘As a supreme if
unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise
have thought it wise to appropriate its label.’ The same applies
increasingly to European political parties of the middle, which either, as
in Britain, carry the name liberal or, as in West Germany, claim to be
liberal but do not hesitate to form coalitions with openly socialist
parties. It has, as I complained over twenty-five years ago (1960,
Postscript), become almost impossible for a Gladstonian liberal to
describe himself as a liberal without giving the impression that he
believes in socialism. Nor is this a new development: as long ago as
1911, L. T. Hobhouse published a book under the title Liberalism that
would more correctly have been called Socialism, promptly followed by a
book entitled The Elements of Social Justice (1922).
Important as is this particular change — one perhaps now beyond
remedying — we must concentrate here, in accordance with the general
theme of this book, on the ambiguities and vagueness caused by the
names generally given to phenomena of human interaction. The
inadequacy of the terms we use to refer to different forms of human
interaction is just one more symptom, one more manifestation, of the
prevailing, highly inadequate intellectual grasp of the processes by
which human efforts are coordinated. These terms are indeed so
inadequate that we can, in using them, not even delimit clearly what we
are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capitalism & Freedom, Friedman


pp 5-6

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name
of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the
individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported lais-
sez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in
economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individ
ual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the
nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In -
political matters, it supported the development of representative
government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the Z
arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms
of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after
1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associ
ated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic
policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily
on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to
achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became
welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth
century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most
effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth
century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequi
sites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and
equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a re
vival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism
against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of
turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he
is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is
more striking in economic matters than in political. The twen
tieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors
parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil
rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable
difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized
power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nine-
teenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Coin-
mitted to action and confident of the beneficence of power so
long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled
by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized
government. He will resolve any doubt about where power -
should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the 7
federal government instead of the state, and of a world organiza-
tion instead of a national government.
Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views
that formerly went under that name are now often labeled con-
servatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nine _
teenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological
sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense
of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be
his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interven-
tions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though,
of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it,
Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover
so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one
another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated
designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-
conservative.
Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to pro-
ponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because
I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties
by using the word liberalism in its original sense — as the doc-
trines pertaining to a free man.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free to Choose, Friedman

pp 4-6

[Adam] Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government
power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the pro-
tection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the per-
petual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of
Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the
purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the
moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure
from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to
the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, gov-
ernment’s role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson’s
ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1 801), was
“[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”
Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom
reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited govern-
ment of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated
power that endangered the ordinary man. The other sick of that
coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good
people to do good. And in an imperfect world there were still
freedom from a strong government. Instead, they were attracted
by the good that a stronger government could achieve—if only
government power were in the “right” hands.
These ideas began to influence government policy in Great
Britain by the, beginning of the twentieth century. They gained
increasing acceptance among intellectuals in the United States
but had little effect on government policy until the Great De-
pression of the early 1 930s. As we show in Chapter 3, the depres-
sion was produced by a failure of government in one area—money
—where it had exercised authority ever since the beginning of
the Republic. However, government's responsibility for the de-
pression was not recognized—either then or now. Instead, the
depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market
capitalism. That myth led the public to join the intellectuals in a
changed view of the relative responsibilities of individuals and
government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for
his own fate was replaced by emphasis on the individual as a
pawn buffeted by forces beyond his control. The view that gov-
ernment’s role is to serve as an umpire to prevent individuals from
coercing one another was replaced by the view that government’s
role is to serve as a parent charged with the duty of coercing
some to aid others.
These views have dominated developments in the United States
during the past half-century. They have led to a growth in govern-
ment at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local
government and local control to central government and central
control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of
taking from some to give to others in the name of security and
equality. One government policy after another has been set up to
“regulate~’ our “pursuits of industry and improvement,” standing
Jefferson’s dictum on its head (Chapter 7).
These developments have been produced by good intentions
with a major assist from self-interest. Even the strongest support-
ers of the welfare and paternal state agree that the results have
been disappointing. In the government sphere, as in the market,
there seems to be an invisible hand, but it operates in precisely
the opposite direction from Adam Smith’s: an individual who in-
tends only to serve the public interest by fostering government
intervention is “led by an invisible hand to promote” private in-
terests, “which was no part of his intention.” That conclusion is
driven home again and again as we examine, in the chapters that
follow, the several areas in which government power has been
exercised—whether to achieve security (Chapter 4) or equality
(Chapter 5), to promote education (Chapter 6), to protect the
consumer (Chapter 7) or the worker (Chapter 8), or to avoid
inflation and promote employment (Chapter 9).
So far, in Adam Smith's words, “the uniform, constant, and
uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the
principle from which public and national, as well as private
opulence is originally derived,” has been “powerful enough to
maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal
life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution,
in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of
the doctor.” So far, that is, Adam Smith's invisible hand has been
powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible
hand that operates in the political sphere.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "

Dumbass,

You likely have your head up your ass. (Again, you've got most of the
population as your company, if it makes you feel any better.)

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html





"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable
term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term
of opprobrium." -- Hayek

"...there was the deliberate deception practiced by American socialists in their
appropriation of the term ‘liberalism’. As Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it
(1954:394): ‘As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.’" -- Hayek

"As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the
intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom
as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society."
-- Friedman


"...true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in
the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable
society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and
power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism;
and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical
propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal
to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if
this world is to become a better place." -- Hayek


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Friedman preface

p xi



INTRODUCTION



2. (Added in 1994.) I use the term liberal, as Hayek does in the book,
and also in his Preface to the 1956 Paperback Edition (p. xxxv below), in
the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free mar-
kets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in
which it means almost the opposite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Hayek PREFACE 1956


pp xxxv-xxxvi


PREFACE 1956


The fact that this book was originally written with only
the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously
affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there
is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to
forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term
“liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which
it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it
often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part
of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country,
helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really be-
lieve in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy
of almost every kind of government control. I am still
puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate
this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted
by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.
This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the con-
sequent tendency of many true liberals to describe them-
selves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believ-
ers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes
make common cause with the conservative, and in some cir-
cumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any
other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liber-
alism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger
in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a neces-
sary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in
its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies
it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with
its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical pro-
pensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusion-
ment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe
that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a
better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is
bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean
on the power of government for the protection of privilege.
The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of
all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and
original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights
to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fatal Conceit, hayek


pp 110-111

Terminological Ambiguity and Distinctions among Systems of Coordination

Elsewhere we have tried to disentang]e some of the confusions caused
by the ambiguity of terms such as ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ (see
Appendix A), of ‘genetic’ and ‘cultural’ and the like, and as the reader
will have noticed, I generally prefer the less usual but more precise term
‘several property’ to the more common expression ‘private property’.
There are of course many other ambiguities and confusions, some of
them of greater importance.
For instance, there was the deliberate deception practiced by
American socialists in their appropriation of the term ‘liberalism’. As
Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it (1954:394): ‘As a supreme if
unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise
have thought it wise to appropriate its label.’ The same applies
increasingly to European political parties of the middle, which either, as
in Britain, carry the name liberal or, as in West Germany, claim to be
liberal but do not hesitate to form coalitions with openly socialist
parties. It has, as I complained over twenty-five years ago (1960,
Postscript), become almost impossible for a Gladstonian liberal to
describe himself as a liberal without giving the impression that he
believes in socialism. Nor is this a new development: as long ago as
1911, L. T. Hobhouse published a book under the title Liberalism that
would more correctly have been called Socialism, promptly followed by a
book entitled The Elements of Social Justice (1922).
Important as is this particular change — one perhaps now beyond
remedying — we must concentrate here, in accordance with the general
theme of this book, on the ambiguities and vagueness caused by the
names generally given to phenomena of human interaction. The
inadequacy of the terms we use to refer to different forms of human
interaction is just one more symptom, one more manifestation, of the
prevailing, highly inadequate intellectual grasp of the processes by
which human efforts are coordinated. These terms are indeed so
inadequate that we can, in using them, not even delimit clearly what we
are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capitalism & Freedom, Friedman


pp 5-6

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name
of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the
individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported lais-
sez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in
economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individ
ual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the
nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In -
political matters, it supported the development of representative
government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the Z
arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms
of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after
1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associ
ated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic
policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily
on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to
achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became
welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth
century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most
effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth
century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequi
sites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and
equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a re
vival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism
against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of
turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he
is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is
more striking in economic matters than in political. The twen
tieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors
parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil
rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable
difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized
power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nine-
teenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Coin-
mitted to action and confident of the beneficence of power so
long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled
by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized
government. He will resolve any doubt about where power -
should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the 7
federal government instead of the state, and of a world organiza-
tion instead of a national government.
Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views
that formerly went under that name are now often labeled con-
servatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nine _
teenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological
sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense
of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be
his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interven-
tions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though,
of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it,
Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover
so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one
another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated
designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-
conservative.
Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to pro-
ponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because
I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties
by using the word liberalism in its original sense — as the doc-
trines pertaining to a free man.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free to Choose, Friedman

pp 4-6

[Adam] Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government
power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the pro-
tection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the per-
petual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of
Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the
purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the
moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure
from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to
the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, gov-
ernment’s role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson’s
ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1 801), was
“[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”
Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom
reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited govern-
ment of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated
power that endangered the ordinary man. The other sick of that
coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good
people to do good. And in an imperfect world there were still
freedom from a strong government. Instead, they were attracted
by the good that a stronger government could achieve—if only
government power were in the “right” hands.
These ideas began to influence government policy in Great
Britain by the, beginning of the twentieth century. They gained
increasing acceptance among intellectuals in the United States
but had little effect on government policy until the Great De-
pression of the early 1 930s. As we show in Chapter 3, the depres-
sion was produced by a failure of government in one area—money
—where it had exercised authority ever since the beginning of
the Republic. However, government's responsibility for the de-
pression was not recognized—either then or now. Instead, the
depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market
capitalism. That myth led the public to join the intellectuals in a
changed view of the relative responsibilities of individuals and
government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for
his own fate was replaced by emphasis on the individual as a
pawn buffeted by forces beyond his control. The view that gov-
ernment’s role is to serve as an umpire to prevent individuals from
coercing one another was replaced by the view that government’s
role is to serve as a parent charged with the duty of coercing
some to aid others.
These views have dominated developments in the United States
during the past half-century. They have led to a growth in govern-
ment at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local
government and local control to central government and central
control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of
taking from some to give to others in the name of security and
equality. One government policy after another has been set up to
“regulate~’ our “pursuits of industry and improvement,” standing
Jefferson’s dictum on its head (Chapter 7).
These developments have been produced by good intentions
with a major assist from self-interest. Even the strongest support-
ers of the welfare and paternal state agree that the results have
been disappointing. In the government sphere, as in the market,
there seems to be an invisible hand, but it operates in precisely
the opposite direction from Adam Smith’s: an individual who in-
tends only to serve the public interest by fostering government
intervention is “led by an invisible hand to promote” private in-
terests, “which was no part of his intention.” That conclusion is
driven home again and again as we examine, in the chapters that
follow, the several areas in which government power has been
exercised—whether to achieve security (Chapter 4) or equality
(Chapter 5), to promote education (Chapter 6), to protect the
consumer (Chapter 7) or the worker (Chapter 8), or to avoid
inflation and promote employment (Chapter 9).
So far, in Adam Smith's words, “the uniform, constant, and
uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the
principle from which public and national, as well as private
opulence is originally derived,” has been “powerful enough to
maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal
life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution,
in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of
the doctor.” So far, that is, Adam Smith's invisible hand has been
powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible
hand that operates in the political sphere.

****brick-

The same could be said about the Republicans and "conservative," especially
when you consider that Bush spends at 8 pts. higher than is taken in. And
we keep getting tax breaks.

-Philip
"gwhite" wrote in message
...


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that
all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see
America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "

Dumbass,

You likely have your head up your ass. (Again, you've got most of the
population as your company, if it makes you feel any better.)

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html





"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost
indispensable
term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a
term
of opprobrium." -- Hayek

"...there was the deliberate deception practiced by American socialists in
their
appropriation of the term 'liberalism'. As Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly
put it
(1954:394): 'As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the
system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.'" --
Hayek

"As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,
the
intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized
freedom
as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the
society."
-- Friedman


"...true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is
danger in
the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any
stable
society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and
power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true
liberalism;
and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical
propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment,
appeal
to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are
desirable if
this world is to become a better place." -- Hayek


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Friedman preface

p xi



INTRODUCTION



2. (Added in 1994.) I use the term liberal, as Hayek does in the book,
and also in his Preface to the 1956 Paperback Edition (p. xxxv below), in
the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free mar-
kets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in
which it means almost the opposite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Hayek PREFACE 1956


pp xxxv-xxxvi


PREFACE 1956


The fact that this book was originally written with only
the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously
affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there
is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to
forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term
"liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which
it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it
often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part
of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country,
helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really be-
lieve in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy
of almost every kind of government control. I am still
puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate
this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted
by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.
This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the con-
sequent tendency of many true liberals to describe them-
selves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believ-
ers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes
make common cause with the conservative, and in some cir-
cumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any
other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liber-
alism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger
in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a neces-
sary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in
its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies
it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with
its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical pro-
pensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusion-
ment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe
that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a
better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is
bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean
on the power of government for the protection of privilege.
The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of
all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and
original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights
to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fatal Conceit, hayek


pp 110-111

Terminological Ambiguity and Distinctions among Systems of Coordination

Elsewhere we have tried to disentang]e some of the confusions caused
by the ambiguity of terms such as 'natural' and 'artificial' (see
Appendix A), of 'genetic' and 'cultural' and the like, and as the reader
will have noticed, I generally prefer the less usual but more precise
term
'several property' to the more common expression 'private property'.
There are of course many other ambiguities and confusions, some of
them of greater importance.
For instance, there was the deliberate deception practiced by
American socialists in their appropriation of the term 'liberalism'. As
Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it (1954:394): 'As a supreme if
unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise
have thought it wise to appropriate its label.' The same applies
increasingly to European political parties of the middle, which either,
as
in Britain, carry the name liberal or, as in West Germany, claim to be
liberal but do not hesitate to form coalitions with openly socialist
parties. It has, as I complained over twenty-five years ago (1960,
Postscript), become almost impossible for a Gladstonian liberal to
describe himself as a liberal without giving the impression that he
believes in socialism. Nor is this a new development: as long ago as
1911, L. T. Hobhouse published a book under the title Liberalism that
would more correctly have been called Socialism, promptly followed by a
book entitled The Elements of Social Justice (1922).
Important as is this particular change - one perhaps now beyond
remedying - we must concentrate here, in accordance with the general
theme of this book, on the ambiguities and vagueness caused by the
names generally given to phenomena of human interaction. The
inadequacy of the terms we use to refer to different forms of human
interaction is just one more symptom, one more manifestation, of the
prevailing, highly inadequate intellectual grasp of the processes by
which human efforts are coordinated. These terms are indeed so
inadequate that we can, in using them, not even delimit clearly what we
are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capitalism & Freedom, Friedman


pp 5-6

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name
of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the
individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported lais-
sez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in
economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individ
ual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the
nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In -
political matters, it supported the development of representative
government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the Z
arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms
of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after
1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associ
ated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic
policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily
on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to
achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became
welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth
century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most
effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth
century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequi
sites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and
equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a re
vival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism
against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of
turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he
is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is
more striking in economic matters than in political. The twen
tieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors
parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil
rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable
difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized
power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nine-
teenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Coin-
mitted to action and confident of the beneficence of power so
long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled
by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized
government. He will resolve any doubt about where power -
should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the 7
federal government instead of the state, and of a world organiza-
tion instead of a national government.
Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views
that formerly went under that name are now often labeled con-
servatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nine _
teenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological
sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense
of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be
his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interven-
tions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though,
of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it,
Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover
so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one
another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated
designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-
conservative.
Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to pro-
ponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because
I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties
by using the word liberalism in its original sense - as the doc-
trines pertaining to a free man.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free to Choose, Friedman

pp 4-6

[Adam] Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government
power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the pro-
tection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the per-
petual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of
Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the
purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the
moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure
from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to
the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, gov-
ernment's role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson's
ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1 801), was
"[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom
reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited govern-
ment of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated
power that endangered the ordinary man. The other sick of that
coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good
people to do good. And in an imperfect world there were still
freedom from a strong government. Instead, they were attracted
by the good that a stronger government could achieve-if only
government power were in the "right" hands.
These ideas began to influence government policy in Great
Britain by the, beginning of the twentieth century. They gained
increasing acceptance among intellectuals in the United States
but had little effect on government policy until the Great De-
pression of the early 1 930s. As we show in Chapter 3, the depres-
sion was produced by a failure of government in one area-money
-where it had exercised authority ever since the beginning of
the Republic. However, government's responsibility for the de-
pression was not recognized-either then or now. Instead, the
depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market
capitalism. That myth led the public to join the intellectuals in a
changed view of the relative responsibilities of individuals and
government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for
his own fate was replaced by emphasis on the individual as a
pawn buffeted by forces beyond his control. The view that gov-
ernment's role is to serve as an umpire to prevent individuals from
coercing one another was replaced by the view that government's
role is to serve as a parent charged with the duty of coercing
some to aid others.
These views have dominated developments in the United States
during the past half-century. They have led to a growth in govern-
ment at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local
government and local control to central government and central
control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of
taking from some to give to others in the name of security and
equality. One government policy after another has been set up to
"regulate~' our "pursuits of industry and improvement," standing
Jefferson's dictum on its head (Chapter 7).
These developments have been produced by good intentions
with a major assist from self-interest. Even the strongest support-
ers of the welfare and paternal state agree that the results have
been disappointing. In the government sphere, as in the market,
there seems to be an invisible hand, but it operates in precisely
the opposite direction from Adam Smith's: an individual who in-
tends only to serve the public interest by fostering government
intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private in-
terests, "which was no part of his intention." That conclusion is
driven home again and again as we examine, in the chapters that
follow, the several areas in which government power has been
exercised-whether to achieve security (Chapter 4) or equality
(Chapter 5), to promote education (Chapter 6), to protect the
consumer (Chapter 7) or the worker (Chapter 8), or to avoid
inflation and promote employment (Chapter 9).
So far, in Adam Smith's words, "the uniform, constant, and
uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the
principle from which public and national, as well as private
opulence is originally derived," has been "powerful enough to
maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal
life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution,
in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of
the doctor." So far, that is, Adam Smith's invisible hand has been
powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible
hand that operates in the political sphere.

****brick-

The same could be said about the Republicans and "conservative," especially
when you consider that Bush spends at 8 pts. higher than is taken in. And
we keep getting tax breaks.

-Philip
"gwhite" wrote in message
...


"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

" As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that
all
those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are
equally
entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see
America
among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. "

Dumbass,

You likely have your head up your ass. (Again, you've got most of the
population as your company, if it makes you feel any better.)

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html





"I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty
should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost
indispensable
term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a
term
of opprobrium." -- Hayek

"...there was the deliberate deception practiced by American socialists in
their
appropriation of the term 'liberalism'. As Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly
put it
(1954:394): 'As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the
system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.'" --
Hayek

"As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries,
the
intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized
freedom
as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the
society."
-- Friedman


"...true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is
danger in
the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any
stable
society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and
power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true
liberalism;
and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical
propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment,
appeal
to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are
desirable if
this world is to become a better place." -- Hayek


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Friedman preface

p xi



INTRODUCTION



2. (Added in 1994.) I use the term liberal, as Hayek does in the book,
and also in his Preface to the 1956 Paperback Edition (p. xxxv below), in
the original nineteenth-century sense of limited government and free mar-
kets, not in the corrupted sense it has acquired in the United States, in
which it means almost the opposite.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Road to Serfdom, Hayek PREFACE 1956


pp xxxv-xxxvi


PREFACE 1956


The fact that this book was originally written with only
the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously
affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there
is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to
forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term
"liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which
it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it
often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part
of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country,
helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really be-
lieve in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy
of almost every kind of government control. I am still
puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in
liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate
this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted
by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.
This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the con-
sequent tendency of many true liberals to describe them-
selves as conservatives.
It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believ-
ers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes
make common cause with the conservative, and in some cir-
cumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any
other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liber-
alism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger
in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a neces-
sary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in
its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies
it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with
its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical pro-
pensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusion-
ment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe
that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a
better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is
bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean
on the power of government for the protection of privilege.
The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of
all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and
original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights
to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fatal Conceit, hayek


pp 110-111

Terminological Ambiguity and Distinctions among Systems of Coordination

Elsewhere we have tried to disentang]e some of the confusions caused
by the ambiguity of terms such as 'natural' and 'artificial' (see
Appendix A), of 'genetic' and 'cultural' and the like, and as the reader
will have noticed, I generally prefer the less usual but more precise
term
'several property' to the more common expression 'private property'.
There are of course many other ambiguities and confusions, some of
them of greater importance.
For instance, there was the deliberate deception practiced by
American socialists in their appropriation of the term 'liberalism'. As
Joseph A. Schumpeter rightly put it (1954:394): 'As a supreme if
unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise
have thought it wise to appropriate its label.' The same applies
increasingly to European political parties of the middle, which either,
as
in Britain, carry the name liberal or, as in West Germany, claim to be
liberal but do not hesitate to form coalitions with openly socialist
parties. It has, as I complained over twenty-five years ago (1960,
Postscript), become almost impossible for a Gladstonian liberal to
describe himself as a liberal without giving the impression that he
believes in socialism. Nor is this a new development: as long ago as
1911, L. T. Hobhouse published a book under the title Liberalism that
would more correctly have been called Socialism, promptly followed by a
book entitled The Elements of Social Justice (1922).
Important as is this particular change - one perhaps now beyond
remedying - we must concentrate here, in accordance with the general
theme of this book, on the ambiguities and vagueness caused by the
names generally given to phenomena of human interaction. The
inadequacy of the terms we use to refer to different forms of human
interaction is just one more symptom, one more manifestation, of the
prevailing, highly inadequate intellectual grasp of the processes by
which human efforts are coordinated. These terms are indeed so
inadequate that we can, in using them, not even delimit clearly what we
are talking about.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capitalism & Freedom, Friedman


pp 5-6

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name
of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the
individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported lais-
sez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in
economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individ
ual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the
nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In -
political matters, it supported the development of representative
government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the Z
arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms
of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after
1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associ
ated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic
policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily
on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to
achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became
welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth
century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most
effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth
century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequi
sites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and
equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a re
vival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism
against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of
turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he
is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is
more striking in economic matters than in political. The twen
tieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors
parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil
rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable
difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized
power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nine-
teenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Coin-
mitted to action and confident of the beneficence of power so
long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled
by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized
government. He will resolve any doubt about where power -
should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the 7
federal government instead of the state, and of a world organiza-
tion instead of a national government.
Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views
that formerly went under that name are now often labeled con-
servatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nine _
teenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological
sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense
of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be
his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interven-
tions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though,
of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it,
Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover
so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one
another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated
designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-
conservative.
Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to pro-
ponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because
I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties
by using the word liberalism in its original sense - as the doc-
trines pertaining to a free man.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free to Choose, Friedman

pp 4-6

[Adam] Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government
power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the pro-
tection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the per-
petual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of
Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the
purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the
moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure
from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to
the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, gov-
ernment's role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson's
ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1 801), was
"[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom
reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited govern-
ment of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated
power that endangered the ordinary man. The other sick of that
coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good
people to do good. And in an imperfect world there were still
freedom from a strong government. Instead, they were attracted
by the good that a stronger government could achieve-if only
government power were in the "right" hands.
These ideas began to influence government policy in Great
Britain by the, beginning of the twentieth century. They gained
increasing acceptance among intellectuals in the United States
but had little effect on government policy until the Great De-
pression of the early 1 930s. As we show in Chapter 3, the depres-
sion was produced by a failure of government in one area-money
-where it had exercised authority ever since the beginning of
the Republic. However, government's responsibility for the de-
pression was not recognized-either then or now. Instead, the
depression was widely interpreted as a failure of free market
capitalism. That myth led the public to join the intellectuals in a
changed view of the relative responsibilities of individuals and
government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for
his own fate was replaced by emphasis on the individual as a
pawn buffeted by forces beyond his control. The view that gov-
ernment's role is to serve as an umpire to prevent individuals from
coercing one another was replaced by the view that government's
role is to serve as a parent charged with the duty of coercing
some to aid others.
These views have dominated developments in the United States
during the past half-century. They have led to a growth in govern-
ment at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local
government and local control to central government and central
control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of
taking from some to give to others in the name of security and
equality. One government policy after another has been set up to
"regulate~' our "pursuits of industry and improvement," standing
Jefferson's dictum on its head (Chapter 7).
These developments have been produced by good intentions
with a major assist from self-interest. Even the strongest support-
ers of the welfare and paternal state agree that the results have
been disappointing. In the government sphere, as in the market,
there seems to be an invisible hand, but it operates in precisely
the opposite direction from Adam Smith's: an individual who in-
tends only to serve the public interest by fostering government
intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private in-
terests, "which was no part of his intention." That conclusion is
driven home again and again as we examine, in the chapters that
follow, the several areas in which government power has been
exercised-whether to achieve security (Chapter 4) or equality
(Chapter 5), to promote education (Chapter 6), to protect the
consumer (Chapter 7) or the worker (Chapter 8), or to avoid
inflation and promote employment (Chapter 9).
So far, in Adam Smith's words, "the uniform, constant, and
uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition, the
principle from which public and national, as well as private
opulence is originally derived," has been "powerful enough to
maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in
spite both of the extravagance of governments and of the greatest
errors of administration. Like the unknown principle of animal
life, it frequently restores health and vigour to the constitution,
in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of
the doctor." So far, that is, Adam Smith's invisible hand has been
powerful enough to overcome the deadening effects of the invisible
hand that operates in the political sphere.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

****brick-

Dumbass,

You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about
what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't
connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with
talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is
doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to
apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a
dumbass.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote:

****brick-

Dumbass,

You were blathering about "liberalism," and apparently don't know anything about
what it meant "then" as compared to the current corrupted meaning. You didn't
connect one dot to another with your dumbass reply. Moreover, responding with
talk about "conservatives" or republicans is a non sequitur. FWIW, it is
doubtful you know what a conservative is either when it comes to being able to
apply the idea of "traditionalist" in a general and not polemic way. You are a
dumbass.