Wow! I took nine pages of notes about freedom and economics while reading. I can see whay it's the seminal text for free market economists and political conservatives. Doesn't touch the relationship of religion to capitalism other than to defend morality. ( )

In politics, conservative thought is stuck at 1944, when this book was first published.
Hayek's work is crucial to understand their weird beliefs (e.g., the all-knowingly Invisible Hand).

All the argumentative building is based on an ancient dilemma: it's better to be governed by men or by laws?
Back then, in WWII, the government of men had the face of fascism and totalitarism and Hayek's answer -the laws- is nearly obvious.

But this is an oversimplification.
Who makes laws in the end? Men.
The enigma is flawed, nothing but a logical puzzle, though Hayek and i agree and the fact that law is a great achievment. Why?
Law basically is a means for organize better the state through a bureaucratic and formal set of rules.
But every time that someone could put himself above the laws, then law is in no respect different from the bark of the master.
Things change significantly when the principle 'All are equal for the law' is applied even for the law-maker.
Law becomes a great vehicle of equality: the power of the leading class who has access to the legislative power is bounded to the same rules of the rest of the society.
Law is not good by itself, but only as long as it limits the absolute power of the élite.
I think that Hayek shared the same view: however, he seems to forget that every time that he vehemently attacks egalitarianism, contradicting himself.

From this unsound base, he takes one of the two argument he chooses for his praise of the Market.: given that every kind of human discretionality is evil, every intervention in the market is fascist.
The second is much more popular and patently false, as we've seen in the last months: the belief that the Market is perfect and it can balance itself.
(if you don't see how idiot is this assumption i can't do anything, you're out of my reach)
Clearly, the competition of many egoistic individuals may be much more efficient than a centralized programmation: in many fields free market, a 'game' with a definite and efficient set of rules, it's the best solution.
But it shouldn't absorb and destroy every space of the social life: market should serve the man, not the other way round.
If you were to share fully Hayke's teachings, you should assume that every kinf of public good (hospital, school, streets) is a limitation of your liberty ....
(funnily enough, there's really someone who belives this: those idiots that call themeself 'anarcocapitalist'...like if there were something revolutionary in believing all the crap of an awfully-rich repubblican thinktank.).

This book is important also for understanding many of the oddities of American society.
The conservative counter-revolution keeps on saying that equality is bad, that altruism is suspect.
They teach you from childhood that success is everything and that you don't attain it, it's your fault -even if meritocracy is quite different, it pretends equal opportunities for all at the start.
How do we wonder that they don't have yet a universal healthcare, in a society where the most hapless tramp is taught that poverty is a sin?
And even worse, this filthy ideology nealy brought us to doom with the last recession.

I only hope that many will wake soon. ( )

Most of the lessons of the road to Serfdom are well known to me through other Libertarian articles,essays, etc. Which is a tribute to how much Hayek has influenced the movement.What I took away from Serfdom was how many of the totalitarians started out at socialists/ communists. It's instructive that a lot of the socialist thought of the 19th century came out of germany. It's very instructive that Oswald Mosley was a Fabian socialist before starting the British Fascists.I also took away the ideas about an international rule of law. It's a pity that the UN wasn't based on Hayek's ideas on this and instead is the paper tiger it is today. Why do we vote on who has broken international law? Why is there not a rule of law which no sovereign can break?He stands up as an instruction in why central planning is such a bloody awful idea.

A masterpiece of classical liberal thought, Hayek's book should be read by every member of the target audience to which he dedicated the work ("To Socialists of All Parties"). In the preface to one of the earlier editions, he mentions the invective directed toward him by allegedly open-minded intellectuals of his time. He modified little between each edition but did update the preface to reflect the most recent times. Milton Friedman wrote the introduction to the 50th anniversary edition. In the 1956 preface, Hayek talks about the attention the National Planning Board gave to the progressive social policies in Italy and Germany 10 years before Fascism attempted to take over all of Europe. Hayek does a superlative job of showing the contradictory result in creating state monopolies to limit the negative effects of private monopolies. He demonstrates that competition is needed most when the business and interactions are most complex, because any monopoly - and especially a state monopoly - cannot adequately plan.

Differentiating himself from the anarchist form of libertarian, he argues the importance of Rule of Law: "Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of knowledge... Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts." (p. 80)

Hayek also discusses the meaning of "truth" and how it becomes something to be defined by government under totalitarianism, rather than something each individual seeks for themselves. The resulting culture is one of cynicism and irrationality: "Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before the social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction in social process." (p. 182)

It would be hard to read this and not see troubling parallels in today's general trend toward authoritarianism. ( )

historical. although it exhibits a logical slippery slope, the book still is a part of econ canon. this work holds spotlight for it's time in contributing to modern school of free market economics, a concept that is ever returned to through history. a must read. from economic control comes big brother. ( )