- Capa comum: 283 páginas
- Editora: University of Chicago Press; Edição: Definitive. (1 de março de 2007)
- Idioma: Inglês
- ISBN-10: 0226320553
- ISBN-13: 978-0226320557
- Dimensões do produto: 15,2 x 2,8 x 22,9 cm
- Peso do produto: 458 g
- Avaliação média: 2 avaliações de clientes
Lista de mais vendidos da Amazon:
no. 13,062 em Livros (Conheça o Top 100 na categoria Livros)
- #8 em Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Administração, Negócios e Economia > Economia > Teoria
- #11 em Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Administração, Negócios e Economia > Economia > Política e Desenvolvimento Econômico
- #14 em Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Política, Filosofia e Ciências Sociais > Filosofia > Político
The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents (Inglês) Capa Comum – 28 fev 2007
|Novo a partir de||Usado a partir de|
Leia Enquanto Enviamos
Compre e comece a ler a amostra digital deste livro enquanto espera ele chegar. Saiba mais aqui.
Frequentemente comprados juntos
Clientes que compraram este item também compraram
Faça download dos Aplicativos de Leitura Kindle Gratuitos e comece a ler eBooks Kindle nos mais populares smartphones, tablets e computadores pessoais. Para enviar o link de download para seu smartphone por SMS, use o formato internacional sem espaços (Código Internacional+DDD+Número. Exemplo: +551199999999)
Para receber o link de download digite seu celular:
eBooks novos para sua biblioteca digital. Veja aqui
Detalhes do produto
Descrições do Produto
Sobre o Autor
F. A. Hayek (1899-1992), recipient of the Medal of Freedom in 1991 and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1974, was a pioneer in monetary theory and a leading proponent of classical liberalism in the twentieth century. He taught at the University of London, the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.
Quais outros itens os consumidores compraram após visualizar este item?
Avaliação de clientes
Principais avaliações de clientes
“A garantia de uma renda mínima para todos, ou uma espécie de piso abaixo do qual ninguém precisa descer, mesmo quando incapaz de se sustentar por si mesmo, parece constituir uma proteção perfeitamente legítima contra um risco comum a todos”
Infelizmente, o autor não é muito conhecido, mas deveria o ser, pois, além de suas contribuições para o debate político e econômico, é uma figura histórica imprescindível para entender o século XX. Recomendo o livro a todos. Grande Abraço.
Essa frase está corretíssima, mas existe ateus em Meca ? Igrejas em Medina ? Ou agnósticos em Kabul ?
Muçulmanos tentando dar uma de santos que tratam a mulher como um "diamantes" mas a coitadas muçulmanos, não podem dirigir carros, não podem escolher com qual homem quer se casar, quando meninas que mestruam aos 7, 9 ou 13 anos, elas viram mulheres - segunda a jurisprudência islâmica - e são casadas a se casar com homens mais velho, beeeem mais velho, e isso não é barbárie ?
Quantas pessoas não foram mortas na Síria pela guerra civil na cristãos foram degolados, igrejas destruídas, monumento milenares destruídos, até livros antiguíssimos queimados por Jihadistas sobre a vida do próprio profeta Maomé, por um simples mentira !
O rei da Arábia Saudita acabou de decretar que ateus são terroristas e criaram leis para persegui-los, isso que nos chamamos de politicamente corretos, ira destruir a civilização ocidental.... Opa ! e sem contar que Muçulmanos querem tirar a cruz da bandeira da Suíça, porquê o país agora é multicultural, que absurdo não !?!? Existe multiculturalismo no Afeganistão ?
Enfim, mais um livro escrito por inimigos da democracia, abraço de um amigo agnóstico !
Avaliações mais úteis de consumidores na Amazon.com
Like many young, intelligent, concerned people, Hayek started his adult life as a democratic socialist, the trendy thing for young people then and now. But World War I caused him to questions the assumptions he had made about the social order. In conversations with his cousin Ludwig Wittgenstein, he developed a strong desire to discover ways that humanity might avoid the tragedy of the War in future. He studied with numerous academic luminaries in Vienna after the war including the renowned economist and powerful anti-socialist Ludwig von Mises. Then, in 1931, he wrote a book that earned him an invitation to join the London School of Economics where he famously debated the demand-side guru, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes won these debates in the short run and held sway over mid-century world economic policy, but lost to history with the supply-side revolution of Freedman, Reagan and Thatcher who all acknowledged their great debt to Fredrick Hayek. This book is not Hayek’s crowning achievement in academic economics (for that work he won a Nobel Prize) nevertheless, it is his most famous and influential work.
As undergraduates, many people read Plato, particularly “The Republic”, and are enthralled. The idea that we can willfully design a perfect, conflict free society is seductive and desirable to young minds who have just left the security of the family, or not. Philosophers in the 19th century rebelled against the hegemony of determanistic materialism that had held sway since Francis Bacon began the struggle to push the Church’s Plato back into the Pandora ’s Box it came from. Successively, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Comte and Mill reopened the box. But without the Church to teach them otherwise, men began to believe they could perfect themselves. Bismarck and Woodrow Wilson made the first political attempts at a Great Society with seeming benevolence. Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo, Stalin and Mao followed their example with significantly less universally humane intent. All of these politicians believed they could organize the world into a scientifically created Eden sans deity through extensive economic planning by a central governing authority vested in academic experts. This authority would have the power to distribute goods and services in such a way that people would be freed from want and from mundane economic decisions. They could live their lives in pursuit of those things much loftier than material wealth. They could fill their days with art and science and comradery and love. Organization and planning would liberate humanity from strife, privation, drudgery and tedium. For nearly one hundred and fifty years socialist doctrine has imbued this dream-world into the heads of the young, the desperate, the hungry, the angry, the resentful and the lonely. Social economic planning was the perfect religious message for generations of men who had lost the Religion of Divinity and were searching for a religion within themselves. Many politicians believe this still today or cynically advocated such policies to accrue power from the gullible.
So the Road to Serfdom is analysis of this intense human desire to organize the world around us through planning in order to achieve some always ill-defined optimum for all. The book clearly demonstrates that the great flaw in this idea is that men can never get together and agree exactly what to plan for or what is optimal. The artist will want resources allocated to the National Endowment for the Arts; the scientist will insist that more be sent to the National Institutes for Health; the farmer will demand that subsidies for corn are the only way society can survive, parents and students will demand bursary, and the poor will clamor for support. This will inevitably lead to conflict as what each man lobbies for is not really an optimum for all but an optimum for himself. The only way these conflicts can be resolved is through a strong central authority that can coerce the cooperation of all the members of society and assign priorities for the allocation of resources. As men will always resist coercion, the applied authority must become increasingly violent to the point of being life threatening in order to impose its central economic will. As the process of organization and planning becomes ever more comprehensive, ultimate authority must eventually be concentrated in the hands of one person, a dictator. In Hayek’s words:
“Most planners who have seriously considered the practical aspects of their task have little doubt that a directed economy must be run on more or less dictatorial lines. That the complex system of interrelated activities, if it is to be consciously directed at all, must be directed by a single staff of experts, and that ultimate responsibility and power must rest in the hands of a commander-in-chief whose actions must not be fettered by democratic procedure .........[planners believe that] by giving up freedom in what are, or ought to be, the less important aspects of our lives, we shall obtain greater freedom in the pursuit of higher values.”
But by giving up economic control do we attain that greater freedom? No. There was no such thing as recreation in Soviet Russia, Hitler had an entire program to fill peoples spare time, the Kraft durch Freude (Strength through Joy), and North Korea’s uber thug, Kim Jong-un, has of late constructed a ski resort though very few people have the money or the nutritional health to use it. All these systems insisted that you will relax and recreate as they tell you. You will read the books they tell you to read. You will perform only the plays they tell you to perform. You will live your life for their priorities. For a planned society to work, people eventually must surrender complete control of their lives, even their leisure, to the planners for the sake of the whole.
Collectivist sentiment arose in the 19th century as a backlash against unrestrained, Laissez-faire Capitalism. Most of today’s remaining socialists view this Laissez-faire Capitalism as the enemy they are still fighting though such a system is long gone and unlamented. Who would play Monopoly if there were no rules at all and theft and deceit were the norm; that is lawless Laissez-faire economic anarchy. But who would play Monopoly if the rules changed at the violent and arbitrary insistence of an all-powerful “Planner” controlling every aspect of the board; that is Socialism. But why should we play either game with our economic lives? People use the term “The Third Way” to try and accommodate planning without resort to dictatorship. But Hayek shows the impossibility of this Third Way and points us to the only way. What Hayek advocates is a Capitalist system with clearly defined rules that apply to everyone, no exceptions, and enduring restraints and limits on the power of government. He argues for consistency and democracy where the playing field is level for everyone and we are all free economic entities making our own economic decisions based on our own desires, our own resources and our own conscience. What he argues is Edmond Burke, 175 years on in an effort to correct the horrific damage we have inflicted on ourselves with the hubris that we could actually perfect ourselves through planning without throwing away our very humanity.
Unfortunately, over 70 years after its completion, Hayek’s description of planners and his warning about their cynical attitude toward personal competence and responsibility can be seen hard at work within our own supposedly free democratic government. In the weeks before I wrote this, a powerful academic from MIT, economist Jonathan Gruber, renowned as the architect of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) has been discovered to have said that “the stupidity of the American voter” made it important for him and Democrats to obscure the true costs of the health care program from the public. “That [hiding the details] was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” said Gruber. “But I’d rather have this law than not.” Thus, Gruber’s ends justify any means including mass deception of the populous of the world’s greatest democratic republic, a populous he openly regards as incompetent and stupid. Deception is the first form of violence perpetrated on the people by planners when they achieve power. For such self-appointed experts, their plan is so important that the vox populi must be silenced first only by stealth, but surely force will soon follow. Their plan is just too important. This is Hayek’s warning for posterity. William F. Buckley Jr. said it best, following Hayek, “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” Or MIT.
Life is and will be always a struggle toward freedom and dignity for each man and woman. That freedom and dignity can never be perfectly attained, but what of these we can manage only comes through personal economic empowerment. That empowerment comes when we throw off the yoke of powerful individuals and defiantly refuse the thralldom they offer in exchange for illusions of security and freedom from the mundane. After the implosion of the former Soviet mega-dictatorship, numerous influential people threw off that yoke and immerged from the economic morass of Socialism to lead the Eastern bloc back toward prosperity on the model of the modern Western democracies and Capitalism based on knowledge they had gained from smuggled copies of this book and those of Hayek’s successor, Milton Friedman. Millions of people had gladly descended down the wrong path and now had to claw their way back out of the Cave Plato had lead them into. Hayek showed them that way back. Many people emerging from under the heel of that Evil Empire have attested to the enlightenment they received from the banned copies of the works of Hayek. Hayek showed these oppressed people as he has shown the ages that to allow people who strive through Plato’s supreme creation of societal hubris to plan and design and control our society for our own good is “The Road to Serfdom.”
I spent a lifetime of research gathering up the insights that I discovered were already documented in this book. I wish I had read it earlier but then I wouldn't have appreciated the depth of thinking in this book if I didn't already know the speak.
So here's the gist. Capitalism works really well, but it also behaves very badly, by co-opting well-intentioned government actions to protect itself from the consequences of raw capitalism. Its goodness is often invisible (lifting billions out of poverty) and its badness is quite visible and newsworthy. The badness leads to cries for 'justice' and business leverages these cries to enact further barriers to free market competition.
Along come the professors. They come up with 'better societies' in theory, that have no practical realities. First we denigrate anything that looks like self-effort ('You didn't build that business') by using the cognitive sciences. YOU do not exist except for a mass of neuronal interconnections. Then we build up a protean theory of society that discounts any personal traits = Rawl's Theory of Justice. You built that business only because of fate favoring you in birth and nurture, and therefore you have much less a claim on the fruits of that business.
Hayek's contribution is that these lies get inculcated into the brightest of our children and provide the seeds for their later support for big government interventions. Never mind that the scientific evidence behind the cognitive sciences is as flaky as the Nazi preoccupation with phrenology (bumps on the skull). Never mind that the only proven answer to Rawl's challenge (i.e., finding an economic system that raises the standards of living of the poorest in society) is capitalism.
Hayek (and Arendt) is important because he (she) reminds us that if you can get people to stop believing in religion then you can get them to start believing in anything. It's the intellectual seeds found in our universities, and filtered throughout popular culture, that allows tyrants and their sycophants to gradually assume power.
Procure por itens similares por categoria
- Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Administração, Negócios e Economia > Economia > Política e Desenvolvimento Econômico
- Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Administração, Negócios e Economia > Economia > Teoria
- Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Política, Filosofia e Ciências Sociais > Ciências Sociais > Sociedade e Ciências Sociais
- Livros > Inglês e Outras Línguas > Política, Filosofia e Ciências Sociais > Filosofia > Político