If so called 'Central Direction' leads to poverty and a 'Voluntary Co-op' leads to plenty, who is to say that the ideals of poverty and plenty is a set idea?
Meaning that if in a 'Central directed' society, the goals are to gain every possible advantage, making some millions, and others less, or losing millions, the idea of poverty changes according to each bracket of taxable income. Where as in a 'Voluntary' society of cooperators, who is to say that their idea of plenty is nothing more than dirt floors, not imported Italian Marble.
"Experience in the past quarter centrury has strongly confirmed the validity of Hayek's central insight--that coordination of men's activities through central direction and through voluntary cooperation are roads going in very different directions: the first to serfdom, the second to freedom. That experience has also strongly reinforeced a secondary theme--central direction is also a road to poverty for the ordinary man; voluntary cooperation, a road to plenty."(Road to Serfdom, Intro, xiii-xiv)
2 comments:
Just something for laughs, Tony Montana was on the road to serfdom, he said, "Me, I want whats coming to me...
...the world, and everything in it."(Scarface).
He also said another phrase that i cant post but i much rather use(for content reasons).
This idea of poverty being relative is HUGE. If anyone knows Mazlows (sic?) Hierarchy of Needs, or has a good website, pleae post. Later, we will discuss (probably?) whether poverty ought to be relative, and possibly how the Church feels/thinks about this.
Post a Comment