2. “Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan”
by Ludwig von Mises
Abstract: This memorandum was written at the request of Henry Hazlitt to provide Mises’s comments on and concerns about F.A. Hayek’s initial proposals for what became the Mont Pèlerin Society. Mises stresses that those who favor liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism must also oppose interventionism. The memo argues that those who fought and lost against the rising tide of totalitarianism at the turn of the 20th Century lost their battles because they settled for middle-of-the-road policies that conceded considerable ground to the socialists. The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are today’s middle-of-the-roaders. As interventionists, they may not be the hoped-for intellectual pioneers to inspire people to build a freer world.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
- Human Action, p. 676; p. 680
Typo: The sentence in the last full paragraph on page 2 should read “The” not “They”: The much talked about decline of competition is a product of protectionism, of intergovernmental commodity trade agreements and of many other similar measures. Remember the New Deal’s N.R.A. Remember the story of the German cartels as narrated in my book Omnipotent Government (pp. 66–78, 158–159, 245–251).
Can anyone tell me what Mises is saying with this line?
“and for the reestablishment of the governments’ exclusive right to resort to violent coercion and suppression”
It sounds like he says that at one time the government had the exclusive right to resort to violence, but that was taken away(by things like unions?), and that we need to go back to only letting the government have the right to coerce and suppress people…
Thanks Jule. Fixed. Bet a paper journal couldn’t do that!
After I read this article, I remembered the book that talks about the history of libertarian and it mentioned Monte Pelerin Society. The book mentions and I did check that the society is no longer a beacon of liberty. The concerns von Mises had in the article still ring true to this day abotu Monte Pelerin society.
What M Conaghan said about two glasses could not be more clearer about von Mises concerns. Patrick Henry did said similar words, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
It is great to know what von Mises’ reservations he had prior to the establishment of the society. It gives me another peek in his mind, an absolutist in his principles.
Anybody? Can anybody answer my question above? Bueller… Bueller…???
Aaron, whether or not Mises specifically meant that he did not mean that government should exceed its role as the apparatus of compulsion and coercion that protects private property rights and the free market.
Aaron,
The full quote is this:
“Those who want to preserve freedom must ask for free trade, both domestic and foreign, for the gold standard, and for the reestablishment of the governments’ exclusive right to resort to violent coercion and suppression (this involves the abolition of the labor union privilege to “punish” strikebreakers).”
I think LvM is saying that extra governmental institutions have been given the power to act violently without restriction. For example, labor unions at one time (maybe even today to some extent) could prevent workers from crossing the picket line through legal and extra legal means. They could intimidate “scabs” — even physically harm them without suffering any penalty. LvM viewed this as a State’s monopoly of coercive violence being farmed out to private organizations. I’m sure Hoppe & Rothbard would have a different/broader take on that issue than LvM (i.e. no one should have these powers including government), but LvM was concerned that the power to commit violence was being extended from governments to favored governmental groups.
Let me be clear I’m not saying that labor unions had the right to physically harm a strike breaker, but there were plenty of coercive means that labor unions employed to keep people in line.
[...] (or, in the case of Leoni, obscure and unavailable) works by such towering libertarian giants as Mises, Rothbard, Bruno Leoni, and Adolf [...]
[...] unpublished (or, in the case of Leoni, obscure and unavailable) works by towering thinkers such as Mises, Rothbard, Bruno Leoni, and Adolf [...]
[...] Future of Liberalism. A Plea for a New Radicalism“; and Mises’s 1946 memo, “Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan“; Murray N. Rothbard, “Milton Friedman Unraveled“; and Walter Block, [...]
[...] unpublished (or, in the case of Leoni, obscure and unavailable) works by towering thinkers such as Mises, Rothbard, Bruno Leoni, and Adolf Reinach. From the feedback I’ve received, libertarians [...]
[...] abortive. … There is no middle way. Either the consumers are supreme or the government.” (“Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan,” [...]