스포일러 경고 기능이 추가됐습니다.
(펼침 메뉴 > 설정에서 변경 가능)

공포영화를 보는 듯도 하고, 은밀한 예언서를 보는 듯도 하다


사회주의, 전체주의, 나아가 공산주의 사상이 기반이 된 규제와 통제가 가져오는 피해와 혼란이 이미 20세기 초 하이예크의 수려한 문장들로 빼곡히 알기쉽게 누설되어 있었다


이렇게 만천하에 세상사람들 다 듣고 보라고 천기누설해두었건만 왜 21세기, 2020년의 현실은, 저주받을 노예의 길을 꽃길이라며 끌고 들어가는가


현재 한국의 상황이 어떤 의도로 어떤 이들에 의하여 어떤 과정으로 만들어져왔고 완성되어갈 것인지 궁금한 독붕이들은 읽어볼만하다


시장이라는 보이지 않는 힘이 너무 싫어 이에 순응치 않고 저항하여 맞서기 시작하면 이제는 사람의 제멋대로의 권력에 복종하고 순응할일밖에는 남지 않는다. 시장의 힘을 피하려다 독재자 개인의 탐욕에 복종하게 된다

고대로부터인간의 역사는 규제와 통제 억압과 복종의 강요에서 벗어나는 과정의 연속이었다

덜 규제되고 덜 억압될수록 문명은 발전했다

자유인간으로 경쟁하며 살것인가 계획된 노예인간으로 정해준 대로 따를것인가의 문제를 놓고 후자의 비인간성 이중성 위선을 고발한다

진짜 꼭 읽어볼만한 책이다




We are not concerned here with the question whether it would be desirable to have such a complete ethical code. It may merely be pointed out that up to the present the growth of civilization has been accompanied by a steady diminution of the sphere in which individual actions are bound by fixed rules. The rules of which our common moral code consists have progressively become fewer and more general in character. From the primitive man, who was bound by an elaborate ritual in almost every one of his daily activities, who was limited by innumerable taboos, and who could scarcely conceive of doing things in a way different from his fellows, morals have more and more tended to become merely limits circumscribing the sphere within which the individual could behave as he liked. The adoption of a common ethical code comprehensive enough to determine a unitary economic plan would mean a complete reversal of this tendency. (101p.)



And it fails to see that, unless this complex society is to be destroyed, the only alternative to submission to the impersonal and seemingly irrational forces of the market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and therefore arbitrary power of other men. In his anxiety to escape the irksome restraints which he now feels, men does not realize that the new authoritarian restraints which will have to be deliberately imposed in their stead will be even more painful.

Those who argue that we have to an astounding degree learned to master the forces of nature but are sadly behind in making successful use of the possibilities of social collaboration are quite right so far as this statement goes. But they are mistaken when they carry the comparison further and argue that we must learn to master the forces of society in the same manner in which we have learned to master the forces of nature. This is not only the path to totalitarianism but the path to the destruction of our civilization and a certain way to block future progress. Those who demand it show by their very demands that they have not comprehend the extent to which the mere preservation of what we have so far achieved depends on the coordination of individual efforts by impersonal forces. (212p.)