>Uhm, he does. That's how the whole thing starts off.
I looked over it now because that got me curious, but surprisingly little felt familiar. He's right that society isn't designed by any individual or council of individuals, but then he spergs out when it comes to democracy. No idea how he got the idea that de Tocqueville was in any way a democrat, when he said this:
>In my eyes human societies, like individuals, are nothing if not by the use of liberty. I have always said that liberty is more difficult to establish and to maintain in democratic societies, like ours, than in certain aristocratic societies which have preceded us. But that this should be impossible I would never be rash enough to believe.
>Despotism . . . appears to me peculiarly to be dreaded in democratic ages. I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it.
Can't imagine it's much different with Acton, whom he also portrays as a democrat who was nevertheless smart enough to fear equality. I don't think Acton wrote a single word in support of democracy anywhere.
>Read it very carefully and you will find out why the knowledge approach to the calculation problem is trash
Kekkers to that. No idea if it made more sense in The Road to Serfdom or if I just didn't understand what exactly he meant back then. I thought at first that he was merely pointing to the problems that states generally have with reliably collecting and analyzing the information they would need to plan society, which makes sense as a critique even though it's far from conclusive. Then I realized that he meant something different, that states cannot plan the economy because they lack information that individuals have, and yes, put that way, his critique is at once shit and proves too much.
>He really is inferior to Mises in everything he took from him attempting to improve. He does not match up to Rothbard as an apprentice.
This. I think he felt way too comfortable being part of the academic circlejerk, writing treatises on theories with zero practical value but that make you feel good about your IQ of 160. I still don't know what equilibrium theory is good for, for example, but Hayek wrote a dozen pages or what on it.