I think the argument about economics of free markets is non-compelling and almost of no interest to the average citizen. So Hayek's argument stressing free markets is kind of a waste, or maybe it is just self-evident to some and of little interest right now to the remainder.
On the other hand, sharpening up the argument that Democracy and Socialism are mutually exclusive would, I think, be wiser. You probably have 1 minute to get the point across to the average citizen and people who are struggling to survive in a fiat system where markets are ALWAYS, by definition, NOT FREE, is probably a wasted effort if the purpose is, as you say, to save the US while we possibly still can.
Thoughts? Can you perhaps direct me to an article which really sharpens up and sticks to the single point that Democracy (individual choice) and Socialism (no choice as an individual except which pre-approved poison to take) cannot coexist for long? People don't get it. Even I didn't get it until last night -- and I've had Hayek's book sitting on a shelf for probably twenty years because it has SO MUCH fluff in the way of the core arguments. IMO, of course, as a practical Ayn Rand fan and small business owner.
---
Here is, IMO, the most impactful comment to make:
(1) Democracy is about CHOICE. Your ability to CHOOSE THE RULES, within an honestly competitive ideological spectrum, under which you will live...or die.
(2) Socialism is about massively PRE-RESTRICTED choice of rules. If ideas don't fit into the "average" head of the populace it is BY DEFINITION off the table as a possibility.
Conversely, no matter how destructive and nonsensical an existing policy is, it is effectively unstoppable under Socialism -- because the AVERAGE citizen has already made their choice of bad choices.
(3) Therefore, if you are a Socialist you are IPSO FACTO AGAINST DEMOCRACY (Choice). If you don't realize that, you are an ignorant voter who is actually ANTI democratic.
Consider if you would favor "democracy" in a field where the only ALLOWED choices were whether you, as a Jew, are going to go into hiding or turn yourself in to the State. Hitler WAS elected DEMOCRATICALLY. He had the popular vote. So the Jews weren't murdered, they couldn't be murdered...they must have committed suicide in the service of the Collective and the State.
Nazism IS Socialism. The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP)
If people don't like that clear line of reasoning I suggest you ask them to define, EXACTLY what "Socialsm" is. When they say something like "People choice" of the economy and the rules ask them "according to what COLLECTIVE?" ... and how can that possibly be consonant with INDIVIDUAL freedom?
P.S. I'm posting this on Atomic Bob's in the hope that someone here can critique my argument and possibly help me make it more cogent and effective. I really think it needs to be a 1 minute piece of logic, tops, which will PUT -- and keep -- THE SOCIALIST ON THE DEFENSIVE. Right now, Socialism has a free pass in public discourse; even people who are logically "smart" and of good-will don't realize what the core, decisive PREMISE of "Socialism" actually is!
| 