coming part of society. John Locke was one, who said it best about the harmful effects of arbitrary action, “freedom . . . to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, . . . a liberty to follow one’s own will in all things, where that rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, arbitrary will of another man. . . . Whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth is bound to govern by established standing laws promulgated and known to the people and not by extemporary decrees. . . . Even the legislature has no absolute arbitrary power, . . . but is bound to dispense justice, . . . while the supreme executor of the law . . . has no will, no power, but that of the law. . . . The ultimate aim is to . . . limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of that society.”(7)Time has shown that central planning not only robbed many people of their basic freedoms but, destroyed the economies of their societies. After reading much of Hayek’s work, I am struck by his vision of how disastrous central planning would be to political policy and economics. To believe that we must centrally direct economic activity if we want to make the distribution of income conform to the current ideas of social justice, Hayek stated. He continues, “Planning”, therefore, is wanted by all those who demand that production for use be substituted for production for profit (8). But such planning is no less indispensable if the distribution of incomes is to be regulated in a way that to us appears to be the opposite of just. Humans, for Hayek, are creative by nature and are not merely responsive to others. Humans do things on their own initiative explains better than anything else all our developments, cultural changes, diversity of approaches to life, varied philosophies, and religions, as well as much of our disagreemen...
