Therefore, Africans on the whole did not develop strong resentments against the former colonizers nor is their attachment to their own social system overly charged with conservative emotion. Owing to high mortality rates, their desire for progeny is strong but might yield with improvement of health. Africans in general would probably not put up emotional resistance against integrating closer than at present into a modern economic system led by industrial nations. Very different is the attitude of the South American Indians. Their clash with Spaniards left a deep and lasting trauma.
According to the spirit of the times, Spanish rule lacked all those features which made colonialism in Africa bearable and in many ways beneficial. In the course of history the contact of societies separated by a very wide technological gradient has often lead to the destruction of the backward society by war, disruptive enslavement, diseases, discouragement, confinement into habitats barely permitting survival and miscegenation.
Up to modern times this has been the lot of most of the smaller backward ethnic groups. What has preserved the Andean Indians has been their number which, though it greatly shrunk in early colonial centuries, recovered later. It is in this light that some violent reactions against family planning, encouraged alike by the catholic clergy and Marxist catechists must be seen and understood. The Spanish attempt at destroying paganism would, if successful, have dissolved the Amerindian value system and with it indigenous society itself, since shared values are the cement without which associations fall asunder.
It is in connection with that danger that the resistance of Andean Indians to fundamental change in their style of life has to be seen and understood. Having been cut off for so long from the main body of mankind and its cultural evolution, it is likely that American Indians had a comparatively poor training in conceptualization and analytical faculty, the growth of which one may suppose to accompany the use and improvement of mechanical devices.
Feeling themselves thus doubly handicapped, they did not attempt to discover the sources of their conquerors' superior power, but withdrew into a deliberate attitude of mental torpor vis-a-vis the foreigners' ways, ignoring as much thereof as possible and only taking over what was forced on them or had to be shown in order to avoid repression. Within this hull of apparent stolid indifference, they continued their traditional life in extreme poverty in their small communities, unable to develop a social solidarity embracing larger social units.
Periodically desperation drove them to revolt against the oppressors. This role of oppressor, as though one of those devil masks used in their colourful pantomimes, has been fitted, with changing control of power over land and mines and suitable indoctrination, to successive different impersonators: Citizens of Latin American countries enclosing substantial bodies of Andean Indians are confronted with a double problem: Casting members of the industrial societies into the role of the oppressors, in which large sectors of the western minded fraction concur or acquiesce, may be seen as an instinctive attempt at giving both social bodies a common stand.
That oppression and expolitation are compulsive ingredients of thought in societies where vast social bodies have been subjected to them for centuries, is understandable. But only few Latin American countries contain archaic societies, whilst the obsession is shared by all, whether more advanced or backward. It may be a common feature of societies who have experienced prolongued foreign unenlightened rule. Latin American emancipation was a reaction against a greedy and narrow minded metropolitan mercantilism, hostile to colonial economic development, and characteristically occured as this policy had softened its grip.
Periodically a nightmare surfaces, of fears of being exploited by foreign powers whose nationals have placed capital in the country in order to render technical services, benefit natural resources or establish industries; of being victimized by big corporations; of having their way barred towards domestic technological advancement; to lose control over the national destiny; in short of becoming a colony again. As mentioned in sections 9 and 12, this syndrome may be understood as nonacceptance of changing textures in social agglutination felt as a loss of national identity.
It is often reinforced by reminiscences of historical South-North antipathies and affords the solace of a good hearty hatred. This syndrome works as an effective blocking mechanism. It obstructs the social changes normally associated with modern technological advance and fetters the most enterprising members of the nation in Japan the artificers of development , branding them as pawns of foreign exploiters if not exploiters in their own right.
It hinders foreign investment, indispensable when local capital is short and deters local private investment, since where foreign investment is not secure, local investment is less so. This calls in the State since where foreign and local capital is frightened away, there remains only the recourse to compulsive accumulation of funds by the public purse either for direct investment or the repayment of loans. But the State is called in for other reasons still. Technological advance is seen as a limited military campaign and not as an unlimitable development of new forms of work on a vaster cooperative scale.
As this requires somebody to utter an unanswerable fiat, it is but natural to put the task in the hands of the public, particularly the military authorities. These strategies will have to be judged by their results. As they reject available capital, ignore economies of scale and labour mobility, encourage indiscipline, shake business morale by repudiating contractual obligations, neglect natural selection of leaders, it will be surprising indeed if they should succeed.
But they may be pursued almost indefinitely because of the provident creation of scapegoats. Xenophobia may be used without any sign of wear and tear in putting the blame for failures at the door of foreigners over and over again. One meets often the opinion that extremist leanings in less advanced nations are prompted by poverty and that more generous aid and a faster growth of effective and not only statistical per capita income will revert these inclinations. If exceptionally that may hold true, more often it will prove fallacious. A faster growth will generally speed up social transformation through dislocation and increased tensions.
However these lines do not propose to discourage aid. They intend to show the working of factors which, although far from unknown, are not always given the attention this writer believes they deserve as elements of reality. Man is more influenced by his ideas and wishes than by facts. He will look at reality through the grid of his mental constructs, convinced that the world is articulated as shown by the grid.
Only through doubt, raised by occasionally discernible discrepancies between grid and fact can one come to grips with reality. And only when a sufficient number of members of different societies have grown conscious of what is reality and what is fancy and are prepared to act in accordance, can one hope that through their mutual understanding will their efforts at improving human conditions turn effective. A condition of liberty in which all are allowed to use their own knowledge for their own purposes, restrained only by rules of just conduct of universal application, is likely to produce for them the best conditions for achieving their respective aims.
Such a system is likely to be achieved and maintained only if all authority, including that of the majority of the people, is limited in the exercise of coercive power by general principles to which the community has committed itself.
Individual freedom, wherever it has existed, has been largely the product of a prevailing respect for such principles which, however, have never been fully articulated in constitutional documents. Freedom has been preserved for prolonged periods because such principles, vaguely and dimly perceived, have governed public opinion. The institutions by which the countries of the Western World have attempted to protect individual freedom against progressive encroachment by government have always proved inadequate when transferred to conditions where such traditions did not prevail.
And they have not provided sufficient protection against the effects of new desires which even among the peoples of the West now often loom larger than the older conceptions——conceptions that made possible the periods of freedom when these peoples gained their present positions. That I have attempted elsewhere. The freedom to pursue his own aims is in fact at least as important for the complete altruist as for the most selfish. Altruism, to be a virtue, certainly does not presuppose that one has to follow another person's will.
We need not consider here again the undeniable fact that the beneficial effects on others of one's efforts will often become visible to him only if he acts as part of a concerted effort of many in accordance with a coherent plan, and that it may often be difficult for the isolated individual to do much about evils that deeply concern him.
It is of course part of his freedom that for such purposes he can join, or create, organizations which will enable him to take part in concerted action. And though some of the ends of the altruist will be achievable only by collective action, purely selfish ends will as often be achieved through it. There is no necessary connection between altruism and collective action, or between egotism and individual action. From the insight that the benefits of civilization rest on the use of more knowledge than can be used in any deliberately concerted effort, it follows that it is not in our power to build a desirable society by simply putting together the particular elements that by themselves appear desirable.
Though probably all beneficial improvements must be piecemeal, if the separate steps are not guided by a body of coherent principles, the outcome is likely to be a suppression of individual freedom. The reason for this is very simple though not generally understood. Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides for unforeseen and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom.
Any such restriction, any coercion other than the enforcement of general rules, will aim at the Edition: The indirect effects of any interference with the market order will be near and clearly visible in most cases, while the more indirect and remote effects will mostly be unknown and will therefore be disregarded. We shall never be aware of all the costs of achieving particular results by such interference. And so, when we decide each issue solely on what appears to be its individual merits, we always overestimate the advantages of central direction.
Our choice will regularly appear to be one between a certain known and tangible gain and the mere probability of the prevention of some unknown beneficial action by unknown persons. If the choice between freedom and coercion is thus treated as a matter of expediency, freedom is bound to be sacrificed in almost every instance. As in the particular instance we hardly ever know what would be the consequences of allowing people to make their own choice, to make the decision in each instance depending only on the foreseeable particular results must lead to the progressive destruction of freedom.
There are probably few restrictions on freedom which could not be justified on the ground that we do not know the particular loss it will cause. That freedom can be preserved only if it is treated as a supreme principle which must not be sacrificed for particular advantages was fully understood by the leading liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century, one of whom B.
All these warnings were, however, thrown to the wind, and the progressive discarding of principles and the increasing determination during the last hundred years to proceed pragmatically is one of the most important innovations in social and economic policy. Since warnings against this sort of procedure have often been misunderstood, as one of my earlier books has, a few more words about their intention may be appropriate. What I meant to argue in The Road to Serfdom was certainly not that whenever we depart, however slightly, from what I Edition: It was rather what in more homely language is expressed when we say: The end of the liberal era of principles might will be dated at the time when W.
The contention often advanced that certain political measures were inevitable has a curious double aspect. With regard to developments that are approved by those who employ this argument, it is readily accepted and used in Edition: But when developments take an undesirable turn, the suggestion that this is not the effect of circumstances beyond our control but the consequence of earlier decisions is rejected with scorn. The idea that we are not fully free to pick and choose whatever combination of features we wish our society to possess, or to fit them together into a viable whole, that is, that we cannot build a desirable social order like a mosaic by selecting whatever particular parts we like best, and that many well-intentioned measures may have a long train of unforeseeable and undesirable consequences, seem to be intolerable to modern man.
He has been taught that what he has made he can also alter at will to suit his wishes, and conversely, that what he can alter he must also have deliberately made in the first instance. In fact, of course, the chief circumstance which will make some measures seem unavoidable is usually the result of our past actions and of the opinions which are now being held.
I am myself now old enough to have been told more than once by my elders that certain consequences of their policy which I foresaw would never occur, and later, when they did appear, to have been told by younger men that these were in any case inevitable and quite independent of what had been done. The reason why we cannot achieve a coherent whole by just fitting together any elements we like is that the appropriateness of any particular arrangement within a spontaneous order will depend on all the rest of it, and that any particular change we make in it will influence the effects of any further steps.
Experience with a particular arrangement in one institutional setting will tell us little about how it would operate in a different setting. An experiment can tell us only whether any innovation does or does not fit into a given framework. But to hope that we can build a coherent order by random experimentation with particular solutions Edition: Experience tells us much about the effectiveness of different social and economic systems as a whole.
But an order of the complexity of modern society can neither be designed as a whole, nor by shaping each particular part separately without regard to the rest, but only by consistently adhering to certain principles throughout a process of evolution. It is probably true that in the eighteenth century the English, little given to speculation about general principles, were for this reason more firmly guided by strong opinions about what kind of political actions were permissible, than the French who tried so hard to discover and adopt such principles.
The truth seems to be that while they talked little about principles, the English were much more surely guided by principles, while in France the very speculation about basic principles prevented any one set of principles from taking a firm hold. The preservation of a free system is so difficult because it requires a constant rejection of measures which Edition: A successful defense of freedom must therefore be dogmatic and make no concessions to expediency, even where it is not possible to show that besides the known beneficial effects, some particular harmful result also would follow from its infringement.
Freedom will prevail only if it is accepted as a general principle whose application to particular instances requires no justification. It is thus a misunderstanding to blame classical liberalism for having been too doctrinaire. Its defect was not that it adhered too stubbornly to principles, but that it lacked principles sufficiently definite to provide clear guidance, and that it often appeared simply to accept the traditional functions of government and to oppose all new ones. Consistency is only possible if definite principles are accepted.
But the concept of liberty with which the liberals of the 19th century operated was in many respects so vague that it did not provide clear guidance. People will not refrain from those restrictions on individual liberty that appear to them the simplest and most direct remedy of a recognized evil if there does not prevail a strong belief in definite principles.
The loss of such belief and the preference for expediency is in part the result of the fact that we no longer know any principles which can be rationally defended. The rules of thumb which at one time were accepted are not adequate to decide what is and what is not permissible in a free system. It indeed expressed protest against abuses of governmental power, but never provided a criterion by which one could decide what were the proper functions of government.
The lay reader may not be fully aware how far we have already moved away from the ideals expressed in these terms. While the lawyer or political scientist will at once see that what I am espousing is an ideal that has largely vanished and has never been fully realized, it is probably true that the majority of people still believe that something like it still governs public affairs. It is because we have departed from the ideal so much further than most people are aware of, and because, unless this development is soon checked, it will by its own momentum transform society from a free into a totalitarian one, we must reconsider the general principles guiding our political action.
We are still as free as we are because certain traditional but rapidly vanishing prejudices have impeded the process by which the inherent logic of the changes we have already made tends to assert itself in an ever widening field. In the present state of opinion the ultimate victory of totalitarianism would indeed be no more than the final victory of ideas already dominant in the intellectual sphere over a mere traditionalist resistance. With respect to policy, the methodological insight that in the case of complex spontaneous orders we will never know more than the general principles on which they operate or predict the particular changes that any event in the environment will bring about, has far-reaching consequences.
It means that where we rely on spontaneous ordering forces we Edition: Often it is even a partial insight into the character of the spontaneous overall order that becomes the cause of the demands for deliberate control. So long as the balance of trade, or the correspondence of demand and supply of a particular commodity, adjusted itself spontaneously after any disturbance, men rarely asked themselves how this happened.
But once they became aware of the necessity of such constant readjustments, they felt that somebody must be made responsible for deliberately bringing them about. The economist, from the very nature of his schematic picture of the spontaneous order, could counter such apprehensions only by the confident assertion that the required new balance would establish itself somehow if we did not interfere with the spontaneous forces; but as he is usually unable to predict precisely how this would happen, his assertions were not very convincing.
Yet when it is possible to foresee how the spontaneous forces are likely to restore the disturbed balance, the situation becomes even worse. The necessity of adaptation to unforeseen events will always mean that someone is going to be hurt, that someone's expectations will be disappointed or his efforts frustrated. This leads to the demand that the required adjustment be brought about by deliberate guidance, which in practice must mean that authority is to decide who is to be hurt.
The effect of this commonly is that the necessary adjustments will be prevented whenever they can be foreseen. What helpful insight science can provide for the guidance of policy consists in an understanding of the general nature of the spontaneous order, and not in any knowledge of Edition: The true appreciation of what science can contribute to the solution of our political tasks, which in the nineteenth century was fairly general, has been obscured by the new tendency derived from the now fashionable misconception of scientific method: Since all the events in any part of such an order are interdependent, and an abstract order of this sort has not necessarily any recurrent concrete parts which can be identified by individual attributes, it is necessarily vain to try to discover by observation regularities in its parts.
The only theory which in this field can claim scientific status is the theory of the order as a whole; and such a theory though it has of course to be tested on the facts can never be achieved inductively by observation but only through constructing mental models made up from the observable elements. It is not to be denied that to some extent the guiding model of the overall order will always be an utopia, something to which the existing situation will be only a distant approximation and which many people will regard as wholly impractical.
Yet it is only by constantly holding up the guiding conception of an internally consistent model which could be realized by consistent application of the same principles, that anything like an effective framework for a functioning spontaneous order will be achieved. Utopia, like ideology, is a bad word today; and it is true that most utopias aim at radically redesigning society and suffer from internal contradictions which make their realization impossible.
But an ideal picture of a society which may not be wholly achievable, or of a guiding conception Edition: The chief instrument of deliberate change in modern society is legislation. But however carefully we may think out beforehand every single act of law-making, we are never free to redesign completely the legal system as a whole, or to remake it out of the whole cloth according to a coherent design. Law-making is necessarily a continuous process in which every step produces hitherto unforeseen consequences for what we can or must do next. The parts of a legal system are not so much adjusted to each other according to a comprehensive overall view, as gradually adapted to each other by the successive application of general principles to particular problems—principles, that is, which are often not even explicitly known but merely implicit in the particular measures taken.
For those who imagine it possible to arrange deliberately all the particular activities of a Great Society according to a coherent plan, it should indeed be a sobering reflection that this has not proved possible even for such a part of the whole as the system of law. Few facts show more clearly how prevailing conceptions will bring about a continuous change, producing measures that in the beginning nobody had desired or foreseen but appear inevitable in due course, than the process of the change of law.
Every single step in that process is determined by problems that arise when the principles laid down by or implicit in earlier decisions are applied to circumstances which were then not foreseen. In this process the individual lawyer is necessarily more an unwitting tool, a link in a chain of events that he does not see as a whole, than a conscious initiator. Whether he acts as a judge or as the drafter of a statute, the framework of general conceptions into which he must fit his decision is given to him, and his task is to apply these general principles of the law, not to question them.
However much he may be concerned about the future implications of his decisions, he can judge them only in terms of all the Edition: This is, of course, as it ought to be: It is often said that the professional bias of the lawyer is conservative. In certain conditions, namely when some basic principles of the law have been accepted for a long time, they will indeed govern the whole system of law, its general spirit as well as every single rule and application within it.
At such times it will possess great inherent stability. Every lawyer will, when he has to interpret or apply a rule which is not in accord with the rest of the system, endeavor so to bend it as to make it conform with the others. The legal profession as a whole may thus occasionally in effect even nullify the intention of the legislator, not out of disrespect for the law, but, on the contrary, because their technique leads them to give preference to what is still the predominant part of the law and to fit an alien element into it by so transforming it as to make it harmonize with the whole.
The situation is entirely different, however, when a general philosophy of law which is not in accord with the greater part of the existing law has recently gained ascendancy. The same lawyers will, through the same habits and techniques, and generally as unwittingly, become a revolutionary force, as effective in transforming the law down to every detail as they were before in preserving it. The same forces which in the first condition make for stationariness, will in the second tend to accelerate change until it has transformed the whole body of law much beyond the point that anyone had foreseen or desired.
Whether this process will lead to a new equilibrium or to a disintegration of the whole body of law in the sense in which we still chiefly understand the word, will depend on the character of the new philosophy. We live in such a period of transformation of the law by inner forces and it is submitted that, if the principles which at present guide that process are allowed to work themselves out to their logical consequences, law as we know it as the chief protection of freedom of the individual is Edition: Already the lawyers in many fields have, as the instruments of general conceptions which they have not made, become the tools, not of principles of justice, but of an apparatus in which the individual is made to serve the ends of his rulers.
Legal thinking appears already to be governed to such an extent by new conceptions of the functions of law that, if these conceptions were consistently applied, the whole system of rules of individual conduct would be transformed into a system of rules of organization. But the leadership in jurisprudence, in the course of the process we have considered, has shifted from the practitioners of private law to the public lawyer, with the result that today the philosophical preconceptions which govern the development of all law, including private law, are almost entirely fashioned by men whose main concern is the public law or the rules of organization of government.
It would, however, be unjust to blame the lawyers for this state of affairs more than the economists. The practicing lawyer will indeed in general best perform his task if he just applies the general principles of law which he has learnt and which it is his duty consistently to apply. It is only in the theory of law, in the formulation and application of those general principles, that the basic problem of their relation to a viable order of actions arises.
For such a formulation and elaboration an understanding of this order is absolutely essential if any intelligent choice between alternative principles is to be made. During the last two or three generations, however, a misunderstanding rather than an understanding of the character of this order has guided legal philosophy. The economists in their turn, at least after the time of David Hume and Adam Smith who were also philosophers of law, generally showed no more appreciation of the significance of the system of legal rules, the existence of which was tacitly Edition: They rarely put their account of the determination of the spontaneous order in a form which could be of much use to the legal theorist.
But they probably contributed unknowingly as much to the transformation of the whole social order as the lawyers have done. This becomes evident when we examine the reasons regularly given by the lawyers for the great change that the character of law has undergone during the last hundred years. Everywhere, whether it be the English or American, French or German legal literature, we find alleged economic necessities given as the reasons for these changes. To the economist the accounts by which the lawyers explain that transformation of the law is a somewhat melancholy experience: These accounts invariably speak of a past laissez-faire period, as if there had been a time when no efforts were made to improve the legal framework so as to make the market operate more beneficially or to supplement its results.
The legend, though wholly untrue, has become part of the folklore of our time. The fact is, of course, that as the result of the growth of free markets the reward of manual labor has during the past hundred and fifty years experienced an increase unknown in any earlier period of history. It seems almost a habit of thought of the lawyer to regard the fact that legislature has decided on something as evidence of the wisdom of that decision.
This means, however, that his efforts will be beneficial or pernicious according as to the wisdom or foolishness of the precedent by which he is guided, and that he is as likely to become the perpetuator of the errors as of the wisdom of the past. If he accepts as mandatory for him the observable trend of development, he is as likely to become simply the instrument through which changes he does not understand work themselves out as the conscious creator of a new order. In such a condition it will be necessary to seek for criteria of the developments elsewhere than within the science of law.
This is not to say that the economist alone can provide the principles that ought to guide legislation—though considering the influence that economic conceptions inevitably exercise, one must wish that such influence would come from good economics and not from that collection of myths and fables about economic development which seems today to govern legal thinking. Our contention is rather that the principles and preconceptions which guide the development of law inevitably come in part from outside the law and can be beneficial only if they are based on a true conception about how the activities in a Great Society can be effectively ordered.
The role of the lawyer in social evolution and the manner in which his actions are determined are indeed the best illustration of a truth of fundamental importance: It is not so much what men consciously aim at, but their opinions about permissible methods which determine not only what will be done but also whether anyone should have power of doing it. Over the centuries a certain economic syndrome has recurred again and again, starting as a consequence of war or the deliberate printing of money.
The following symptoms amongst others develop:. At a certain point in the development of the crisis governments have often deliberately, by law, attempted to hold prices and wages from rising, thus causing civil strife. Particular examples are the bloodshed which followed the notorious Edict of Diocletian in Rome of A.
Tyranny has been an almost inevitable consequence.
The tie of party was stronger than that of blood, because a partisan was more ready to dare without asking why. Righteous ends, thus proved, absolve of guilt the most violent means. There is so much evidence that this repeated syndrome recurs as a rational procedure that it is hard to believe either that it is a matter of chance, or that on countless occasions some clever, evil individual has understood how to enslave his fellow citizens. Here we have a possible answer. Such a misunderstanding can easily account for the problem and the confusion of so many economists.
Robert Ardrey 7 puts it thus: Unfortunately the devilish consequences of inflation are not understood as being the cause of the trouble, nor are the causes of inflation itself agreed upon. Communists who are few are malicious and make use of the unhappy circumstances, but the vast majority of the people in the past and today may act harmfully in ignorance and not out of malice. On such occasions the position which each well-known Edition: Professor Condliffe of Stanford University summed up and said in effect: Because of these disagreements I, who am not an economist, can state categorically that most of the speakers were wrong.
Maybe some of them were right, and it is my belief and hope that some of them were right, but this lack of understanding, or perhaps failure to agree on a principle or principles is a very serious matter, the more serious as it is not understood as such. It is also trying a sort of voluntary incomes policy. Unions, especially those led by Communists, are resisting and are demanding pay increases to allow for inflation. We have a plague of strikes. During the rate of inflation in the U.
Professor Friedman 11 tells us that inflation is caused by the creation of money. There would appear to be some relationship between government expenditure and inflation. The supply of medication, pensions and education are almost total government monopolies, as is much of the housing programme. These monopolies produce a vast range of involuntary exchanges which by definition are less effective than voluntary arrangements. The possible wastage of resources must be great. I am sure he is right. As I shall explain, one consequence of restrictive marketing regulations for eggs in the U.
This confirms the importance of envy and other low passions in politics when ignorance prevails. A very able newspaper man who was in Cuba at the time the agrarian reform took place stated that when he asked the new farmers their opinion regarding the success of the agrarian reform, most of them emphatically remarked upon the failure of same, but at the same time most of them said they were not unhappy. Das hilft das Eis zu brechen. This means, however, that his efforts will be beneficial or pernicious according as to the wisdom or foolishness of the precedent by which he is guided, and that he is as likely to become the perpetuator of the errors as of the wisdom of the past. Laziness is also stimulated in this way. He advised me to Edition: He agreed from January 1st to take over the running of the I.
Misused resources or losses will arise at the point of involuntary exchange. If so, would they not be causing inflation, because of the need to create money to make good the losses? The majority will be able to afford their own social services at higher quality levels and have money to spare. Is this not a description of a true state of welfare? That something is seriously wrong is now being made clear by the statistics which analyse current developments.
But the facts are very different. Others argue that the break-even point is too high—too near the average. Only one thing can be certain, that with a G. We in the United Kingdom and others in many countries are plunging through the stages of the age-old syndrome, Edition: Yet there must be hope. These were to be phased out over two years. It has also freed egg producers to organise themselves in the best way to produce the highest quality egg, at the lowest price, at the right time and place. A compulsory situation has been replaced with a voluntary one. Since I have been involved in three separate activities which have tended to point me in one direction.
Demobilised from the R. In having left the City I pioneered the broiler industry in the U. A change of policy on my farm was made possible when a Conservative Government removed farm feed rationing. Progress is almost impossible when animal feed is rationed. In I had asked advice of Professor Hayek, then at the London School of Economics, as to what, if anything, I could do about the wrong direction in which British policies were, and are still, taking my country.
He advised me to Edition: Both my meeting with Professor Hayek and my entry into the broiler industry had their consequences on my future, which in turn had much to do with the unwinding of the Egg Board. The needs of my business in producing chicken, made it necessary to study and disprove the policies on which the egg subsidy and Board were based. Either these ideas would eventually be applied to chicken and make my business difficult, if not impossible, or the Egg Board must be proved harmful, and not a benefit, and be wound up. The knowledge I have acquired over the years as a result of these annual meetings, has aided me in the intellectual conflict on the agricultural front.
Further, because statutory marketing power endeavours to divorce marketing from production, and to make the producer more important than the consumer, both farmer and producer must suffer. Amongst many self-defeating activities attempts are then made to treat over-production as if it does not exist. Resulting huge costs are charged to the farmers on a communal basis, who do not understand what is hurting them.
Problems arise, but the causes not being understood, usually Edition: Very few in the industry understood what was happening.
By the egg market was in disarray, but it became possible to analyse the trouble. It is easy to appreciate the forces that this differential let loose. I was able to prepare a written case both for a free market, also exposing the absurdities and their enormous costs, which the regulations produced. This was a matter of logic and analysis; and not of personalities. Such a basic false assumption led in the case of eggs to the trouble which I have described, and which became visible in mathematical terms. A similar situation exists for the marketing of milk which has its own Milk Board. This is the more remarkable because the Milk Board has stated at intervals that it would prove the criticisms false.
Unable to do so, it has avoided any discussion. That this avoidance can continue is unlikely. Linda Whetstone's photograph appeared on the front page of the Daily Express, a leading national newspaper. It is not a political organisation and it therefore can and does achieve a high level of press reporting. The researchers do not have to compromise over principles. He was kind enough to approve it. So much so that Mrs. She rightly appreciated how much this would Edition: It is my contention that a well argued and documented case, even alas one which is not sound, will have consequences.
I met Ralph Harris in A Double First in economics, he became a lecturer at St. Andrew's University, and by a part-time journalist. He agreed from January 1st to take over the running of the I. The remarkable output of this independent economic research organisation run by Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon is still developing. Its income continues to rise but at no time has it been great. Today it is a recognised authority both in the business and academic worlds and its supporters include leaders in business, industry and banking.
This gap the I. In October Professor T. This was the publication of Hobart Paper No. Yamey, which had the remarkable distinction of being largely implemented in terms of legislation within four years of publication. On the eve of the seventies Hobart Paper No. The Hobart Papers are important and unique as a series of, so far, some fifty studies, covering a wide range of the most significant problems of economic and social-economic policy.
I have personal evidence that it was indeed Hobart Paper No.
If predictive success is the test of the quality of the economics underlying policy proposals, then at least to put it negatively, there is nothing in the Hobart Papers remotely resembling the record of failure sketched out above. It is fortunate for the enlightened discussion of economic policies, and, it is to be hoped, will be through the seventies, that at least from one direction, if not from any other, proposals are being put forward in terms of economic analysis and predictions of the technical quality, range, carefulness, consistency and rigour generally shown in the Hobart Papers.
I have now seen the law changed in respect of egg marketing and R. The conditions for the success of economic sanity must be such a clear understanding of what needs to be done in the particular and in the general that this can be documented, so that others can understand the cause and consequence relationships.
This is a difficult positive exercise and is vital. A negative case with appropriate prophecy may also be necessary, constructive, and useful when an economy is in or going to be in trouble. If such a Edition: When Ralph Harris told me he was to publish R. I pointed out that to me the document was dull. I was later to hear the same words used in connection with the documentation provided to a Government Commission studying the problems of the Egg Board. I am now out of the chicken business. But I am still a large farmer and still interested in achieving security for myself and fellow countrymen, and this leads me into asking more questions.
We have been successful on two minor fronts. Will the same techniques work at higher levels of national policy? But we cannot claim that these developments indicate that success is in sight. However, they do indicate that understanding can produce results. As conditions deteriorate more ears will listen and our homework must be done and be ready.
There are historical precedents which indicate that the syndrome can be reversed. Instead of a rapid succession of laws designed to reduce choice in an attempt to solve the problem, governments have deliberately set about increasing choice. Under the impact of war, they met with little opposition. And once introduced, the palace coterie showed itself most unwilling to relinquish the domestic controls, even in times of peace….
From one end of the state to the other, our venerable reporter Edition: Surely the most remarkable and reassuring of all determined efforts to maximise choice was the action taken by Dr. Erhard in Germany in Erhard with detailed legislation designed to maximise choice. It must be within our power to repeat this process in our own countries. We must continually convey the message that wrong policies will produce wrong consequences which we can forecast.
As the situation deteriorates, others will be prepared to listen to the measures required to correct the economic disease. It is now becoming possible in the U. I do not intend to write an essay in honour of our friend, Ludwig von Mises, but I should not like to miss the opportunity the celebration of his 90th birthday gives to record the debt so many of us owe to his work and influence.
Politics is the art of the possible. Certain actions have predictable consequences and it is well that someone should have the courage to say that interventions with the laws of supply and demand may not achieve the end desired and if they do the side-effects may be more injurious in the longer term than the hardship the intervention seeks to alleviate. No one has more clearly shown that short-cuts are deceptive, and von Mises did more than follow through with relentless logic the consequences of actions personal and governmental in the field of economics.
He raised the study from a purely materialist and deterministic basis into the realm of a philosophy of choice, thus giving to it a place in our general concept of freedom. There are two men I particularly respect because they have been impelled by an underlying belief in freedom; one is our friend von Mises, happily still with us, the other is the late William Rappard.
The association is significant for it was Professor Rappard who invited von Mises to join him in Geneva where a wider foundation of teaching was laid which profoundly influenced post war recovery on the Continent of Europe and is recognisable in some recent statements of policy in Britain. This concept is vital to the preservation of the way of life to which we are accustomed and for prodding us against the laziness or apathy of giving up the choices open to us and the endeavour to expand their range.
Here we express our gratitude to von Mises for his words and work. There used to be a jibe that if you consulted six economists, you could rely on getting at least half a dozen different answers, but in recent years it looked more as if the growing army of economists in journalism, broadcasting, Penguin Specials, and even in the rival political parties, were unanimous. There were plenty of economic squares at the Institute of Economic Affairs and elsewhere who warned the politicians against over-egging the pudding.
But politicians are rather like illusionists. Even worse than the over-enthusiastic salesmen they often deride, politicians are always tempted to promise more than can be achieved. How convenient then, when some academic, intellectual-looking specimens came along muttering novel economic spells to work the magic of perpetual abundance. In what passes for democracy, the undoing of most politicians can be summed up in the wise old caution that you can't have your cake and eat it. Politicians, for high moral as well as low electoral purposes, are inevitably inclined to fret against such tiresome limitations.
Put simply, they want to have their cake, invest it, export it, hand it round the underdeveloped Edition: Is it surprising that politicians are inclined to run out of cake long before they run out of promises? Ever since the war, governments have tended to spend too much themselves, to stoke up inflation, and then put the financial leeches on the productive, private sector of the economy.
Increased purchase tax, credit squeezes, controls over hire purchase-all disrupted the very industries that plan ahead to reduce costs. The hard option - which in retrospect, looks even more attractive - would have been to run the economy deliberately at a marginally higher level of unemployment - though not as high as the planners have clumsily inflicted on us.
It would have meant easing the movement of labour between jobs and areas and phasing out policies of protection and subsidy which give too many unions and managements a comfortable life without needing to exert themselves. Above all, realistic management of the economy would have required bringing the sprawling public sector under firm control. Alas, over-reacting to the mismanagement of government policy in the late 's, the leaders of the establishment meekly enrolled as followers behind a handful of economic pied-pipers who sang their beguiling songs about planning and perpetual economic growth.
Without correcting the evident changes in consumer preference - as in central heating or holidays abroad, and a thousand developments which no forecaster or computer can ever predict. We do not have a time machine to explore what lies ahead. The future is unfolded, just one day at a Edition: Renewed talk like the T. The start of all wisdom in looking ahead is to allow ample margins of safety for the unexpected.
Today, we are all uncertainty and no margins. Totals necessarily conceal the significant differences in the individual components. So often the central planner gets a onedimensional, black-and-white snap-shot of the perpetually changing, variegated movements that make up the sum total of economic activity.
The false perspective and precision of broad economic categories leads in practice to schoolboy howlers. The new Industrial Expansion Act threatens to invest tax-payers' money in risk capital. But if we come down to earth we know that vast amounts of capital are wasted - and not only in nationalised industries - for example, because trade unions won't allow it to be worked efficiently.
The essential requirement is to be able to distinguish between profitable and unprofitable lines of investment, and the surest way of doing so is to enforce competition more rigorously so that inefficient firms are driven to make better use of capital or to make way for firms that will. In peace, this unitary national purpose happily dissolves into an infinite variety of conflicting individual, family, neighbourhood, church and political interests.
Constant propaganda about crises and the national interest then takes on a profoundly authoritarian flavour. In their daily work, some people prefer a quiet life. Others relish the risk and challenge of striving after outstanding achievements. Most of us are somewhere in between. We're prepared to exert ourselves a bit harder if we can see a more or less visible return. There is no shame in this modest, limited, essentially rational view of the good each of us can do.
Forster put his finger on the danger of fattening up our rulers. Speaking as one of the parents and plaintiffs in the celebrated legal action over the Enfield Edition: I would therefore argue that reliance on economic self-interest is the surest protection of individual freedom, self-expression and other liberal values. Even if idealists question that proposition, they simply have to accept that self-interest is the most pervasive and powerful prime-mover to productive effort of every kind.
Incidentally, disappointed Indian planners would do well to follow the communists in this one respect. The failures of recent years were all predictable for anyone familiar with the economic literature. Almost two hundred years ago, Adam Smith described the galvanizing force of individual exertion in these words:.
On that highly contemporary note, let me return to the present ominous talk about restoring Britain's fortunes by raising taxes, penalising the self seekers and pegging wages and other incomes. There is no future in that direction. Taxation on earned income already rises above nineteen shillings in the pound for men of exceptional ability.
Despite the well-told Galbraithian fairy stories, it's these pace-makers whose innovations can transform whole industries, as they've done, in retailing, artificial fibres, in plastics, household equipment, in toys and even - pop radio. If individual drive is to be given its head, legal and institutional barriers to effort and enterprise must be removed - for example, by outlawing absurd trade union restrictions, and by ending such archaic laws as opening hours for shops and pubs.
Indeed, drastic reforms are essential throughout the economy. From Adam Smith to Keynes and Robbins, the great economists have taught that the best check against the exploitation of consumers is competition - or even the threat of competition.
It's because nationalised coal-mines and railways are shielded from direct commercial challenge that costs get out of hand, and hundreds of millions of pounds are misinvested. Erhard - the architect of the German miracle - has emphasised, the welfare state mentality in Britain has been allowed to run amok in the commercial sector. Also, die Zweifel werden verscheucht. So geschehen vor einem Jahr, die Reise gebucht bei www.
Viel wichtiger ist, sobald man die Passkontrollen nicht vergessen: Das war meine erste Lektion Landeskunde: Versprechen zwei ist auch eingehalten. Das Fahrzeug ist O. Die Sache ist gut angelaufen — und, um es hier gleich vorweg zu nehmen: Wichtiger waren die Sights des Tages: Jahrhundert aus einer Felswand direkt hinter ihm herausgeformt — ein interessanter Tag, aber auch anstrengend, wie ich abends beim gepflegten Dinner zugeben musste.
Hier gibt es alles, was man in Europa selten oder nie an einer Stelle bestaunen kann. Aber es bleibt nicht bei diesem Leoparden. Wer jetzt interessiert ist an einer Reise nach und durch Sri Lanka, wende sich an: Gut zu lesende Story. Kenne aus eigener Anschauung viele der Orte und ich habe auch stets nur gute Erfahrungen mit den Einheimischen gemacht, wenn man ihnen normal und freundlich begegnet.
Es gab keine Klimaanlagen, aber Moskitonetze und sehr viele Geckos: Die Erinnerungen an dieses Land sind bis heute lebendig - es war ein Traumurlaub: Gerade was die Art zu Reisen anlangt. Auch wir waren begeistert. Und ich kann ebenfalls sagen: Vom Anfang bis zum Schluss hat alles gepasst. Wir haben nicht nur nette Menschen kennengelernt, sondern auch Erfahrungen gemacht, die uns ein Leben lang in positiver Erinnerung bleiben werden.
Und durch Shiran einen Freund gefunden, der immer im Herzen bleiben wird: VG Sabrina - www. Wir hatten noch nie zuvor eine Individualreise unternommen, dementsprechend spannend fanden wir unser Vorhaben. Unglaublich, wie viel es auf diesem doch kleinen Flecken Erde zu bestaunen gibt!
Die Tour mit ihm war perfekt, von der Ankunft bis zum Heimflug. Ayubowan- keine Floskel, sondern ernstgemeint auf Sri Lanka! Ich kann diesen Service nur unbedingt empfehlen. Dies war ein weiterer Grund direkt zu buchen und individuell zu reisen. Er hat aber fast jeden Tag angerufen und sich erkundigt ob auch ja alles in Ordnung sei und wir die Ferien geniessen.
Das hilft das Eis zu brechen. Dies gibt einem einen ganz anderen Eindruck vom Land als viele der touristischen Orte. Hiran hat uns die Tickets gekauft, auf den Zug gebracht und dann am Bahnhof gewartet bis wir gekommen sind mit dem Auto ist man schneller. Wir kommen sicher irgend einmal wieder! Als "Ersatz" hatte er allerdings seinen guten Freund Ranil vorgestellt, mit dem wir uns dann also auf den Weg gemacht haben. Der Fahrer von Shiran war absolut genial und wir haben in den 8 Tagen eine wirklich tolle gemeinsame Zeit gehabt. Aber wie reist man am sinnvollsten?
Was dann folgte, haben Sie und die vielen anderen Kommentar-Verfasser auf dieser Seite schon treffend beschrieben: Ein Rundum-Sorglos-Urlaub, begleitet und im Hintergrund perfekt organisiert von einem freundlichen, zuvorkommenden jungen Mann namens Shiran. Unter dieser E-Mailadresse kann Shiran direkt kontaktiert werden: Aber fangen wir von vorne an: Ein weiterer Vorteil sind seine ausgezeichneten Englischkenntnisse, die das Reisen sehr unkompliziert machen.
We have had a fantastic round-trip in Sri Lanka for 13 days from April 12th till April 25th with 6 persons 3 couples from Germany. Five months before, we engaged Shiran Saji of Travel Partner Sri Lanka to organize the tour with midclass hotels, a big van for eight persons and much of luggage and a german speaking driver. Our visit was perfect organized and well timed. We were very satisfied to get known such engaged persons, who show us their nation.
All was well done, that we could enyjoy our holidays. Good hotels, typical restaurants and every day fresh water on board of the van gave us all we need and fresh bananas. There was enough time to see all sights and to have much of fun. April mit 6 Personen 3 Paaren aus Deutschland. Wir waren mehr als zufrieden, solch engagierte Menschen kennenzulernen, die uns ihr Land zeigten.
Wir danken Dir herzlich, Shiran! Unser Urlaub im September war schlicht und ergreifend wundervoll. Selbst an Orten, an denen sich Shiran selbst nicht so gut auskannte, bescherte er uns wundervolle Einblicke in sein Land. Von Anfang bis Ende hat alles super geklappt. Unsere Tour hat Preethi geguided. Er hat uns eine wundervolle Rundreise beschert. Es war eine wundervolle Woche. Wir haben auf unseren Safaris viele Elefanten und sogar einen Leoparden gesehen. Preethi ist wirklich ein toller Guide und auch ein super Fahrer bei der Sri Lanka Fahrweise beeindruckend.
Auch das von Shrian vorgeschlagene Hotel war super. Wer Ruhe sucht, ein absolut gepflegtes Haus mit sehr gutem Essen, der ist dort richtig! Unser Dank an Shiran! Der Reisebericht hat uns veranlasst vor unsere Ayurvedakur fuer 4 Tage eine kleine Rundreise zu machen. Ein sehr vorsichtiger Fahrer. Die Reise hat in allen Punkten unseren Vorstellungen entsprochen. Vielen Dank fuer den guten Service. Als wir in Colombo ankamen wartete er bereits am Flughafen und brachte uns zum Hotel. Am kommenden Tag begann unsere Tour mit Kuram, einem seiner Guides. Die Hotels entsprachen unseren Erwartungen - mit einer Ausnahme in Nuwara Eliya, welches nicht befriedigend war.
Da wir nur eine Nacht dort blieben, verlangten wir jedoch keine Umbuchung. Danach war wieder alles bestens: Vielen Dank nochmals an Shiran uns sein Team! Bathiya sprach gut englisch und auch etwas deutsch. Auch uns haben der Bericht und die Kommentare veranlasst, unsere Reise durch Sri Lanka mit srilankatravelpartner.
Der Abschied am Flughafen war auch unsererseits sehr herzlich! Shiran und sein Team sind empfehlenswert! Wir waren zwei Wochen mit dem Guide Sampath unterwegs und sind sehr zufrieden. Und das in der Hochsaison! Wir haben in zwei Wochen so ganz entspannt extrem viel gesehen und erlebt. Anschliessend haben wir selbst organisert noch ein paar Tage Strandurlaub gebucht. Wie wir von Indika erfuhren, war der Morgenzug ausgefallen. Unser Fahrer kannte sich hervorragend mit Fauna und Flora aus, da haben wir vieles erst durch seine Hinweise erblickt.
Ich kann dem Reisebericht voll und ganz zustimmen, weil ich zusammen mit meiner Frau auch bereits zweimal mit Shiran in Sri Lanka unterwegs gewesen bin. Es war von Anfang an eine individuelle Reise mit Punkten, die nicht im " Programm" stehen. Wenn Mann keine Lust hat sich zu rasieren, Shiran kennt einen Barbier, der neben der Rasur auch noch eine Kopfmassage vornimmt, einfach klasse. So ging es immer weiter , es war eine unvergessliche Reise. Er regelte auch auf dieser Reise alles zu unserer vollsten Zufriedenheit. Als wir mitten in der Nacht in Colombo ankamen, wurden wir von Shiran und unserem Fahrer Indika empfangen.
Unser erster Aufenthalt war in Negombo - auf Shirans Empfehlung hin haben wir noch einen spontanen Stopp auf dem Fischmarkt eingelegt - es war wirklich sehr intressant. Mit Idika ging es dann 10 Tage durch Sri Lanka. Somit waren wir insgesamt 16 Tage unterwegs. Unser Fahrer Indika war sehr freundlich, zuvorkommend und hilfsbereit. Das Auto war in einem sehr guten Zustand mit Klimaanlage. Sri Lanka an sich ist ein sehr abwechslungsreiches Land.
Von uns gibt es eine klare Weiterempfehlung. Shiran und seine Crew sind wirklich sehr toll. Alles war bestens organisiert und geplant. Das Land, Kultur, Tiere und die Leute sind sehr faszinierend. Unser Fahrer Kalana war auch immer sehr hilfsbereit und hatte immer ein offenes Ohr. Sri Lanka ist ein wirklich tolles Land und absolut eine oder mehrere: Gewisse Bedenken hatten wir im Vorfeld bzgl. Dass die Barbezahlung bei Anreise in Ordnung ist, hatten wir ja hier gelesen und deswegen auch keine Sorge.
Hier ist ein sicherer Fahrer Gold wert. Und den hatten wir in Indika! Sicherlich gibt es in Sri Lanka viele gute Fahrer die Rundreisen anbieten. Ich kann nur hier meine Erfahrungen weitergeben und die waren sehr positiv und verdienen 5 Sterne! Ich war mit zwei Freunden vom Oktober in Sri Lanka unterwegs. Also kurz Shirans Website angeschaut - die einen professionellen und guten Eindruck macht und v.
Unsere Erfahrung mit Shiran und Indika waren durchweg positiv. Als wir bei einer Unterkunft im Osten ankamen, die nach unserem Geschmack leider viel zu weit weg von unserem eigentlichen Ziel Arugam Bay lag, war Shiran sofort am Telefon und organisierte uns in Rekordzeit ein neues Hotel. Sri Lanka ist ein wirkliches Paradis mit einer unglaublich reichen Flora und Fauna. Aber das steht ja alles in dem lesenswerten GEO Artikel weiter oben. Markus, Sebastian und Timo. Kurz vor Anreise schrieb mir Shiran noch eine beruhigende Mail.
Wir sprachen immer rechtzeitig ab wann es wohin gehen sollte wie lange die Fahrt dauert usw. Die Hotels waren Mittelklasse Hotels und waren ok. Diese Ausflugsziele haben uns am Besten gefallen: Kaudulla Nationalpark - Safari im offenen Jeep bei Sonnenuntergang und mit vielen Elefanten - einfach wundervoll!
Dieser Einsatz den die Beiden gezeigt haben, Ihre absolute Kundenorientierung, stets freundlich und hilfsbereit haben unseren Aufenthalt in Sri Lanka zu einem absoluten Highlight gemacht. Shiran fackelt nicht lange und schon ist die Reise gebucht! Die Hotelauswahl unserer Reise war gut und wenn das Hotel nicht gerade der Hit war, waren wenigstens die Angestellten besonders liebenswert.
Bei der Reiseroute haben wir uns mehr oder weniger an die Standardroute gehalten. Adam's Peak hingegen empfehlen wir als Erlebnis besonderer Art trotz der Anstrengung. Als eigentlicher Indienfan hat mir Sri Lanka gesamthaft zwar gut gefallen, aber ich muss es gleichwohl als India Light bezeichnen. Auch uns lag die Vorauszahlung nach Ankunft etwas im Magen… Dank der vielen guten Kommentare im Internet und des guten 1. Eindruckes von Shiran am Flughafen haben wir das Risiko jedoch in Kauf genommen und es nicht bereut. Unsere Rundreise mit Indika als Fahrer war dann sehr angenehm und alles hat prima geklappt.
Er ist immer sehr sicher und umsichtig gefahren. Daumen Hoch, 5 Sterne von uns. Ich selbst habe unter GerhardF. Andernfalls kann schnell eine Schadensersatzklage wegen Verleumdung entstehen. Gerhard Froneck, froneck gmx. Wir sind zu dritt vom