Seven: Economic Control and Totalitarianism
A directed economy, which is a planned economy run by a strong authority, often resembles a dictatorship. Many planners believe that because of the complexity of economic activities, a centralized group of experts should oversee the economy without interference from democratic processes. They suggest that political democracy can still exist as long as it doesn’t involve economic decisions. Some prominent planners argue that by giving up certain freedoms in economic matters, people can gain more freedom in other, more important areas of life. This leads some individuals, who oppose political control, to support an economic dictatorship instead.
However, the idea that economic issues are less important is misleading. Economic activities are closely tied to overall life choices, and separating them creates a false sense of security. Economic goals are not just about making money; they are about having choices and opportunities for various needs. Money is actually a tool that allows freedom and choice in today’s society. If rewards shifted from money to things like social status or privileges, individuals would lose significant freedom to choose for themselves, placing all these decisions in the hands of the planners.
Realizing that economic needs affect everything in life shows that reducing individual economic freedom leads to restricting personal choices. Central planning doesn't just affect financial matters; it determines how individuals set their priorities in life. The economic authority would essentially control all aspects of life by deciding which needs are most important, limiting personal desires and choices.
The true nature of economic control means that planners aren't just influencing our finances; they are controlling our choices in many areas including personal relationships, work, and leisure activities. Even though planners might not directly manage what people buy, their control over production allows them to decide what goods and services are available, giving them significant influence over people’s lives.
Also, the kind of work people do is a major part of their happiness. While choices may be limited, having some degree of choice keeps individuals engaged and motivated. In a planned economy, however, the illusion of choice would be created where the planners dictate job opportunities, making real choices nearly impossible. Planners would set rules that limit entry into certain jobs and how much people could earn, reducing individual options to a few standard categories.
The goal of planning is, in effect, to treat people like tools serving a larger purpose instead of recognizing individual wants and values. This differs from a competitive economy, where people face costs for their choices. In a planned system, individuals would have to obey rules set by authorities, losing personal power over their economic decisions and quality of life.
Although some advocate for the idea of “potential plenty,” the truth is that there will always be economic scarcity, leading to necessary choices. Those who promote planning often don’t have practical solutions to raise production enough to eliminate poverty. Calling for increased central planning overlooks the possibility of losing personal freedoms and risks creating more unhappiness under a supposed fair system.
Switching to central planning would significantly change how life operates today, impacting nearly every aspect. This shift would mean that individuals would lose even more choices than they did in the past economic controls. The desire for collective needs can limit personal choices, leading to a situation where individuals must conform to plans rather than having the freedom to choose.
In the end, while it's true that political freedom needs economic freedom, this freedom should come from individuals having the ability to make their own choices about their economic lives, rather than being controlled by planners who focus on security and planning over personal independence.
A directed economy, which is a planned economy run by a strong authority, often resembles a dictatorship. Many planners believe that because of the complexity of economic activities, a centralized group of experts should oversee the economy without interference from democratic processes. They suggest that political democracy can still exist as long as it doesn’t involve economic decisions. Some prominent planners argue that by giving up certain freedoms in economic matters, people can gain more freedom in other, more important areas of life. This leads some individuals, who oppose political control, to support an economic dictatorship instead.
However, the idea that economic issues are less important is misleading. Economic activities are closely tied to overall life choices, and separating them creates a false sense of security. Economic goals are not just about making money; they are about having choices and opportunities for various needs. Money is actually a tool that allows freedom and choice in today’s society. If rewards shifted from money to things like social status or privileges, individuals would lose significant freedom to choose for themselves, placing all these decisions in the hands of the planners.
Realizing that economic needs affect everything in life shows that reducing individual economic freedom leads to restricting personal choices. Central planning doesn't just affect financial matters; it determines how individuals set their priorities in life. The economic authority would essentially control all aspects of life by deciding which needs are most important, limiting personal desires and choices.
The true nature of economic control means that planners aren't just influencing our finances; they are controlling our choices in many areas including personal relationships, work, and leisure activities. Even though planners might not directly manage what people buy, their control over production allows them to decide what goods and services are available, giving them significant influence over people’s lives.
Also, the kind of work people do is a major part of their happiness. While choices may be limited, having some degree of choice keeps individuals engaged and motivated. In a planned economy, however, the illusion of choice would be created where the planners dictate job opportunities, making real choices nearly impossible. Planners would set rules that limit entry into certain jobs and how much people could earn, reducing individual options to a few standard categories.
The goal of planning is, in effect, to treat people like tools serving a larger purpose instead of recognizing individual wants and values. This differs from a competitive economy, where people face costs for their choices. In a planned system, individuals would have to obey rules set by authorities, losing personal power over their economic decisions and quality of life.
Although some advocate for the idea of “potential plenty,” the truth is that there will always be economic scarcity, leading to necessary choices. Those who promote planning often don’t have practical solutions to raise production enough to eliminate poverty. Calling for increased central planning overlooks the possibility of losing personal freedoms and risks creating more unhappiness under a supposed fair system.
Switching to central planning would significantly change how life operates today, impacting nearly every aspect. This shift would mean that individuals would lose even more choices than they did in the past economic controls. The desire for collective needs can limit personal choices, leading to a situation where individuals must conform to plans rather than having the freedom to choose.
In the end, while it's true that political freedom needs economic freedom, this freedom should come from individuals having the ability to make their own choices about their economic lives, rather than being controlled by planners who focus on security and planning over personal independence.