You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.74 AVERAGE
3.74 AVERAGE
Somehow I feel like the main argument was an obvious one, yet I have to painstaking admit that i also see the necessity of the existence of this book and would actually recommend that many Americans read this, especially nowadays.
A well written and performed defense of classical liberalism.
I oscillate between 3 and 4 stars for this work. Trying to keep in mind that the economic landscape at the time it was written may have played a role and separate my views of his conclusions from how well he argued them, was not an easy task. Settled on 3 stars because Hayek becomes repetitive in some instances and makes arguments that seem far removed from reality, even taking into account the political and economic landscape of the 1940s. Another failing of the arguments is Hayekâs singular focus on a very narrowly defined west, at times seeming to consist only of the United States and Great Britain when discussing the brilliance and greatness of western political thought. At one point he goes so far as to imply that the expansion of the term western civilization to include regions outside his limited occident is a factor in western philosophers being led astray by ideology that must inevitably lead away from democracy and towards totalitarianism.
Hayek also fails to convincingly, or strongly, engage with the problems posed by job insecurity when employment is the key to some of the most basic human needs. He oversimplifies the freedom of movement of workers when discussing how lack of job and wage security can spur people to seek out new opportunities. He dismisses the notion that private companies might manipulate supply by hoarding or destroying products in order to keep supply low relative to demand, and downplays the idea that patents might be used as a means of monopolization.
Hayek is not entirely opposed to state intervention and encourages it in the areas of worker safety and hours, and where externalities occur. The acknowledgment of the role the state should play in worker safety undercuts his argument about the freedom of movement of workers. The book as a whole is limited in scope in its contemporary and historical examination of the political philosophy and governments of various nations and cultures, despite making comments on the ideal national and international ways of governance.
I oscillate between 3 and 4 stars for this work. Trying to keep in mind that the economic landscape at the time it was written may have played a role and separate my views of his conclusions from how well he argued them, was not an easy task. Settled on 3 stars because Hayek becomes repetitive in some instances and makes arguments that seem far removed from reality, even taking into account the political and economic landscape of the 1940s. Another failing of the arguments is Hayekâs singular focus on a very narrowly defined west, at times seeming to consist only of the United States and Great Britain when discussing the brilliance and greatness of western political thought. At one point he goes so far as to imply that the expansion of the term western civilization to include regions outside his limited occident is a factor in western philosophers being led astray by ideology that must inevitably lead away from democracy and towards totalitarianism.
Hayek also fails to convincingly, or strongly, engage with the problems posed by job insecurity when employment is the key to some of the most basic human needs. He oversimplifies the freedom of movement of workers when discussing how lack of job and wage security can spur people to seek out new opportunities. He dismisses the notion that private companies might manipulate supply by hoarding or destroying products in order to keep supply low relative to demand, and downplays the idea that patents might be used as a means of monopolization.
Hayek is not entirely opposed to state intervention and encourages it in the areas of worker safety and hours, and where externalities occur. The acknowledgment of the role the state should play in worker safety undercuts his argument about the freedom of movement of workers. The book as a whole is limited in scope in its contemporary and historical examination of the political philosophy and governments of various nations and cultures, despite making comments on the ideal national and international ways of governance.