After reading the regulations on the road to slavery

When reading this title, I think it is somewhat contradictory, because when I look forward to the future, people always look forward to beautiful and ideal things. Why should I lead to slavery?? After reading the contents, we know that this reflects the author’s anxiety about the decline of the market economy and the rise of the socialist trend of thought in 19th century Britain.. In fact, the proper meaning of the article is’ guard against the road to slavery’.     In the whole article, the author’s comparison between liberalism and collectivism under the condition of market economy constitutes the core of the book. According to my understanding, the meaning of ” liberalism” here is to respect the market competition mechanism formed spontaneously in the social aspect, and to focus on the protection of personal freedom and rights in the pursuit of value.. Collectivism here includes all kinds of socialism and totalitarianism. In his view, Russia’s socialism and Hitler’s totalitarian rule are like a pair of’ twin sisters’. Although their ideal goals are different in nature, the means they take in practice are’ plans’, and the plans will inevitably lead to arbitrary power, thus making individual rights and freedoms insecure.. It is no wonder that the ultimate ideal of Marxism, that is, to move from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, has been called’ Great Utopia’ by him.. For this reason, he strongly advocates division of labor in a competitive society and opposes’ planned economy’, which is reflected in political respect for decentralization and opposition to arbitrary power.     I will only talk about the rule of law and democracy under these two social systems.     About the rule of law in Hayek’s view, the rule of law means that the government is bound by the rules stipulated and announced in advance in all actions – this rule makes it possible for a person to foresee with great certainty how the authorities will use its coercive power in a certain situation and plan his own affairs according to his understanding of it.. That is to say, within the known competition rules, an individual can freely pursue his private purpose without being obstructed by conscious government power. The government cannot foresee its specific effect when formulating such general rules, and it is precisely because of the uncertainty of the results that it is fair among those who use these rules..     The collectivist type of economic plan must run counter to the rule of law, because it has to compare and weigh the interests of various people and groups one by one in its planning, and ultimately it must be up to one person’s point of view to decide which people’s interests are more important. This will make it difficult for the government to be impartial, but to impose its evaluation on others. The law is no longer a tool for the people, but a tool for legislators to influence the people for his purpose.. The government is no longer a practical organization designed to help individuals fully develop their personality, but a’ moral’ organization that imposes its views on all moral issues on its members, regardless of whether such views are moral or very immoral. In this sense, Nazis or any other collectivist country are’ moral’, while liberal countries are not. In his view, the difference between the two rules is just like the rules of road use and ordering people to go. The former only sets up a signpost, while the latter chooses the road for the people..     From the above point of view, he believes that the due meaning of the rule of law is the generality of rules and the limitation of government power. In the words of his book, ” the freedom of movement left to the executive body in charge of enforcement power should be reduced to a minimum.”. ‘ In terms of value, he values the instrumental value of law more. Of course, the restriction of government power guarantees the freedom and dignity of human beings and realizes the substantive value of the rule of law at the same time..     As democracy is a positive freedom, it needs to mobilize the society, and liberalism’s creed on democracy is to reduce those issues that need to be agreed to those that may exist, that is to say, the scope of people’s exercise of democratic rights is limited, and other areas must allow things to develop freely, which is the price of democracy.. It is based on the basic view that people’s areas of concern are always limited, and the scope of reaching agreement among all kinds of value goals is very small, and only in this small scope can people rely on voluntary consent to guide state behavior..     The society that relies on the central plan to perform its functions often hopes to organize the whole society and its resources to achieve a common goal, which is called ” public interest” or ” all welfare”. However, the welfare and happiness of hundreds of people cannot be measured by a single measure of quantity, which requires the establishment of a value sequence or a complete ethical code.. In fact, people always choose between different values so that they cannot form a common view of what should be done under what circumstances. For this reason, it is often necessary to impose the will of a small minority on the people in a planned society, because this minority will be the largest collective among the people that can reach agreement on some issues. When this system is governed by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.     Hayek believes that democracy is not needed for a good public administration, but to guarantee the pursuit of the highest goal of civil society and private life.. Democracy is essentially a means, a practical means to guarantee domestic stability and personal freedom. It is by no means always correct and reliable in itself. If democracy is no longer a guarantee of personal freedom, it may still exist under totalitarian regimes in some form.     From the above point of view, what he said about democracy is that people exercise it within the scope of a few issues that may be agreed upon. If the scope of this issue is too expanded, it will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of a few people.. And it is not the ultimate goal but a means to guarantee personal freedom and national stability..     To sum up, the same idea of the rule of law and democracy is to protect and respect human freedom and dignity. The rule of law is achieved by restricting government power, while democracy is achieved by self-management as far as possible in the goal that the people can reach agreement..     Perhaps this is of reference value to our socialist rule of law and democratic construction today.