This is the first post of an experiment: A running blog commentary of a book, chapter by chapter. [Here's the full list.] I'm not sure if it will work, but the idea is worth the attempt. Blogging about a book is similar to blogging about the news, except there's more and better material to choose from, and less competition. Why write another response to some dull pundit when there's a gold mine on Amazon?

The book I will go through is Friedrich A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. There are several reasons for this choice: First, it's a wonderful book, with some ideas I'd like to see revived. Second, it's written in a clear and concise style that invites quotation, replies and further discussion. Third, writing about these ideas will help me to think about them. And fourth, I want to see these ideas discussed, and there's no better place to do that than in a blog.

Many of the chapters in this book are self-contained essays, and I intend to cover most of them one by one, summarizing the ideas, and adding my own thoughts. The result won't be quite Hayek, and not quite me. I hope they'll all be starting points for good discussions, in this and other blogs.

In a way, my purpose in blogging this book is not so different from Hayek's purpose in writing it. Hayek sees himself as a relay station for old ideas, ideas that contribute to our success, but have been forgotten by many:

If old truths are to retain their hold on men's minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations. What at one time are their most effective expressions gradually become so worn with use that they cease to carry a definite meaning. .. It has been a long time since the ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization was effectively restated.

This is wrong in the sense that we have degenerated from some golden age of liberal ideas. No such past exists. But it is true in the sense that an idea can be clearly phrased at one time, make an impact that lasts for centuries, and still be forgotten by later generations, or obeyed without remembering why. Why is freedom of speech and open debate so important? Most Westerners today believe that they are, but is the idea that justifies freedom of speech still clear in our heads, or has it become a habit, preserved by a lasting, positive association with the word "freedom"?

When ideas are forgotten like this, semantically alive but dead inside, the result can be absurd and tragic. We limit freedom of speech in the name of freedom of speech. We think up what to us seems like fresh counterarguments which the original idea was intended to refute. The ideas themselves no longer benefit us, only the inertia from their original force keep us moving in the right direction. Ideas need to be rediscovered, restated, and reapplied to current conditions, or they die. Consider this my attempt at contributing to that.

When Hayek wrote this book fifty years ago, he believed that liberal ideas where acutely at risk, not only from Communism abroad, but also from within the West:

In the struggle for the moral support of the people of the world, the lack of firm beliefs puts the West at a great disadvantage. The mood of its intellectual leaders has long been characterized by disillusionment with its principles, disparagement of its achievements, and exclusive concern with the creation of "better worlds". This is not a mood in which we can hope to gain followers. If we are to succeed in the great struggle of ideas that is under way, we must first of all know what we believe.

Communism is dead, and though radical Islam is an enemy to liberal ideas, and though the disillusionment Hayek mentions is still present in the West, it's important not to be dystopic. We live in a world that is more liberal than the world of the 50's. Europe's economies are freer, civil rights stand stronger throughout the West, and the nations that offer alternatives to our worldview are either less aggressive or less powerful than the Soviet Union. We move, most of the time, in a right direction.

But there's still a struggle of ideas under way, and liberal ideas are at risk, from abroad and within. The threat from abroad comes not only from religious fanatics and mad dictators, but from new forms of pro-market authoritarianism: Russia, China, tempting compromises that combine good international relations and many aspects of capitalism with the opportunity for an elite to control society. The threat at home comes from social democracy, in the wider sense that combines free markets with a guardian government, which endlessly tinkers with society to guide it towards detailed goals.

Social democracy is the philosophy of strategy games like Sim City, where there is independent activity, but success depends on you being there to plan it all in detail: The player is the ultimate bureaucratic expert, whose vision and judgment is required for society to move forward. Social democracy is not a horrible way to do things, but it's less than optimal. Our focus on immediate problem-solving and detailed tinkering distracts from the long-term effects of the changes we make. When every problem is treated as a stain on the government's pride, it's easy to abandon complex mechanisms we don't understand in favor of popular solutions we think we understand.

Formulating a liberal alternative to these ideas is an important task. Europe is a mess, with no concept of its own purpose beyond feel-good phrases and ad hoc solutions. American conservatism does have a clearly stated and partly liberal worldview, but it's too entangled with unrelated ideas and partisan dishonesty to be of direct use to us. We need to rediscover and restate what it means to be a liberal democracy - there's no ready made package to help us.

Summarizing his worldview, Hayek writes:

Whether the moment has arrived when this tradition can be revived will depend not only on our success in improving it but also on the temper of our generation. It was rejected at a time when men would recognize no limits to their own ambition, because it is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of men's wisdom and capacities and aware that, within the range for which we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires. It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of his plans is likely to produce.

Ambition, impatience and hurry are often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide the power of coercion and if improvement depends on those who, when authority is conferred upon them, assume that in their authority lies superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others. I hope our generation may have learned that is has been perfectionism of one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency societies have achieved. With more limited objectives, more patience, and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptous confidence in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and its discernment."

I think it will be seen throughout my posts that I agree more with Hayek in general than I agree with how he applies his ideas in practice. The words above explain why. I'm not a libertarian, and what turns me off from libertarianism is the dogmatism of so many of its followers. Randians in particular, but I haven't come across many self-described libertarian who aren't eager to revolutionize one or another aspect of functioning societies. But revolutions are inherently dangerous. The arguments Hayek makes above and later in the book in favor of time tested ways of doing things, also applies to my own point of reference, Norway's social democracy. Human interactions are complex, and if an existing system works tolerably, it is criminal to abandon it for some ideal out of a book. Social democracy works tolerably. (Anyone who doubts this is encouraged to visit and see.) Reforming it must be done with respect for what already works, and with the law of unintended consequences in mind. Which means that Hayek applied to Norway does not lead to a Thatcherite revolution, but to a cautious introduction of liberal ideas in a social democratic context.

I'll probably forget this as I continue this series, and at times talk like a revolutionary, but I take comfort in the knowledge that revolutions are not only dangerous, but difficult to carry out. Democracy is opposed to radical change, and this is something anyone who enjoys our success should be thankful for. If it wasn't, freedom would disappear the moment its reason was forgotten, and not gradually over time. More important than finding perfection is to rediscover the reasons our societies work in the first place, and that means acknowledging the benefits of societies not usually associated with Hayekian ideals. Libertarianism, perhaps, but a pragmatic kind.

This series is a long term project, and I will take my time writing these posts. So don't expect weekly installments. I'll also skip some chapters that don't interest me or which I feel I'd need special qualifications to write about. That still leaves plenty of interesting material. Let's see if this works.

I like the idea Bjorn. I will pick up the book and start in on it. I would suggest alerting your readers as to what chapter you plan exploring in your next post so we can do our homework.

Stop it!

You had a great blog that was one of my major sources of news and information about current events and now you have turned it into a discussion forum on philosophical books!

I don’t want to buy that book, it used three long sentences to say that we must know what to believe…

We change the world by being a part of it, not by agree or disagree with a book. Some French philosopher (that I can’t remember the name on) supported the American revolution on the basis that taxation without representation is wrong, but his opinion and books changed nothing.

Get you’re face out of that book and start bloging about stuff that matters, like how the EU now is about to lift the arms embargo on china or something. You always had good stuff to discuss, at least when you were not whining about the bias Norwegian media.

You do not have a valid reason of excuse,
Get back to work!

Franko: I would suggest alerting your readers as to what chapter you plan exploring in your next post so we can do our homework.

Chapter 1. Won't skip any of the first eight or nine chapters if I can help it.

Stop it! You had a great blog that was one of my major sources of news

Stop it right there yourself - me, a "major source of news"? What are you smoking? And I'd say Hayek has major relevance to Norway and Europe. There's too much "breaking news" mentality in the blogosphere. Won't harm anyone to take a step back for a moment.

Actually I find the subject topical in view of the how the EU is currently conducting social policy and how the Democrats propose to do so in the US.

:-( I'm only starting to read Hayek's other great book, the road to serfdom (late christmas present from my gf)

Dave.

What a coincidence. My wife and I are currently reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I wonder if Hayek is enjoying a resurgence of interest? I see that David is also reading Hayek. The fact that some of us are actually reading Hayek now should be encouraging to you.

You quoted Hayek as saying, "It has been a long time since the ideal of freedom which inspired modern Western civilization and whose partial realization made possible the achievements of that civilization was effectively restated." Most recently, George Bush, in his inaugural address, described America as a missionary for freedom. He used the word "freedom" 27 times in his speech. The prospect of an America that might take that mission seriously and actually practice what it preaches set off alarms in Western Europe and in other quarters. I am trying to understand why so many self-described liberals -- in this country and in Europe -- think it a bad idea to promote the ideals that they themselves profess to hold dear.

You think that "freedom of speech and open debate" are important, Bjørn, and so do I. But how often anymore do we witness an honest exchange of opinion? It appears to me that folks are more and more closed minded. Ideology more and more supplants honest inquiry and a sincere search for real understanding. Once an ideology is embraced, the reasoned quest for enlightenment ends, and barricades are thrown up round positions that are nevermore questioned or abandoned. Seems to me, we inhabit an ideological era, but long for an age of reason, where mentors like Hayek could guide us toward well reasoned positions.

You say that when Hayek wrote his book, liberal ideas were at risk. Never more so than today, I feel. Support on the left for the anti-democratic insurgency in Iraq is indicative of our dilemma. While Europeans might object to aspects of the war in Iraq, they should encourage the attempt to plant a democracy there. On the contrary, social democrats in Europe and America are the least enthusiastic about that project. That makes me wonder whether they are really committed to the ideals they claim to espouse.

Got to go. I may try to read along with you.

Gill Doyle: But how often anymore do we witness an honest exchange of opinion? It appears to me that folks are more and more closed minded. Ideology more and more supplants honest inquiry and a sincere search for real understanding.

I expect it was always like that, or at least since our ideas reached a certain level of sophistication, able to take on a life of their own, separate from reality. (Perhaps theology counts as a form of ideology?) I'd say that we move in the right direction. Online media allow us to create a battlefield of ideas that newspapers implemented only a shadow of. Not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity, but many do.

Support on the left for the anti-democratic insurgency in Iraq is indicative of our dilemma.

And so, by the way, is support on the right for "psychological" torture and imprisonment without trial of potential terrorists. Considering that, at least in America, those people are more influential than the extreme leftists who support the rebels in Iraq, it's something that should concern us.

That makes me wonder whether they are really committed to the ideals they claim to espouse.

I think they are - because the ideals the social democrats find it most important to uphold these days are the ideals of international cooperation: Diplomacy and multinational institutions. "Freedom" is just taken for given. We already seem to have it, so we don't think about it, and focus on what we don't have instead, forgetting that the rest of the world doesn't have many of our most important freedoms, and need those freedoms more than they need signatures on paper.

I can't see Norway breaking loose of its nanny-state tethers. It was just two years I spent in Norway, and so I certainly can't claim to know the country that well, but I came to think that Norwegians are very much complicit in the restrictions on personal liberties that I, for my part, experienced as something a bit oppressive. It seemed to me that Sandemose's jantelov was still in effect. That is, a kind of small town small-mindedness seemed to have taken root in the society, and the result was a government that placed all sorts of petty restrictions on personal liberties. While Norway had done wonderful things for its people (socialized medicine, a free university education for those who qualified, a virtual absence of poverty), one felt like an overprotected child, I thought. While the state guaranteed a safe and comfortable existence for the individual, it seemed to frown on many forms of individual enterprise. I read today that an Oslo family named Mehmet has had to jump through hoops to get the state to pay for a particular medical service that is available in Chicago, but not in Norway. The state was reluctant at first to pay for the service because the procedure requires that a fertilized egg be examined or manipulated, and this procedure apparently violates Norwegian bio-tech laws. Of course, this seems to most of us like a case in which the state is infringing on personal liberties. Many of us who would object to the our government's telling us that we can not abort a fetus if we so choose are apparently (in Norway, anyway) willing to allow the government to restrict our right to manage our health in other ways. I don't mean to harangue my Norwegian pals. We in America have certainly got our share of problems and misguided laws and regulations. My point is that Norwegian psychology is a bit different than what we've got here in the States. It's going to be hard to wean the Norwegian off that big, safe Nanny teat. The Norwegians are too fond of regulating individual rights. Americans, on the other hand, will go without health insurance altogether before they'll recognize the benefits of socialized medicine.

I find this blog very informative and constructive.I'm doing a paper concerned with F.A.Hayek and the information and opinions I find here are very useful and eye opening.Please do not abort this mission.As I read more I'll post my perspective.

>

That is not a wholly correct definition. The welfare state is also a kind of "peace treaty", becoming a compromise between rightwing and leftwing element. I a wholly free market society, the poor have really no moral obligation to accept the rules, because the rules is made wholly on the premises of the rich and successfull.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1525

Amerikanske tilstander: Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity – Av Samuel P. Huntington, January 24, 2005 09:56 PM

Bjørn Stærk har startet et eksperiment, han blogger løpende fra en bok han leser. Det synes jeg var en god idé så jeg har tenkt å kopiere ideen hans og gjøre det samme. Boken jeg har tenkt til å blogge fra er Samuel P. Huntingtons «Who Are We:...