Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, it’s useful to read Freidrich A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, even if only to know where the libertarian impulses of Republican party thought leaders emerge. But lots of people discuss the idea of freedom without much thought to what Hayek actually said. here’s a passage:

Everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems with as much foresight as possible. Hence the popularity of “planning.” The dispute between the modern planners and the liberals is not on whether we ought to employ systematic thinking in planning our affairs. It is a dispute whether we should create conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether all economic activities should conform to a “blue-print” written by powerful planners.

It is important not to confuse opposition against centralist planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully thought-out legal framework is required. Competition is not only the most efficient method known, it is also the only method which does not require the coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority. It dispenses with social control and gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages connected with it.

The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies – these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity.

I put the social services bit in bold, because it strikes me that we can have a conversation about policies like the Affordable Care Act within these parameters. Is “centralizing” health care like the ACA does part of the “extensive system of social services” that enhances competition, or is it part of the “central planning” that Hayek associated with the path to Facism and Nazism. You can argue either side. On one hand, the demand for health care is inelastic. When you need that surgery, you need it and will pay whatever you can for it. You aren’t going to comparison shop. So perhaps competition in the marketplace isn’t really going to produce the best delivery of care. On the other hand, mandating to employers with over 50 employees that they need to provide coverage to their workers might be the “socialist planning” that Hayek warned about.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could actually debate these things rather than focus on gaffes and polls. I’d give $20 for a question in one of the upcoming debates where the moderator started with… In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek said… Well, one can dream 🙂