What we are saying here is that whether Hayek is there or not it is the same path that history takes us down. Hayek or someone is a commentator. He is just talking about capitalism; not doing it. This is because capitalism does itself. History would have worked out the same. So, my thinking is this. What does Hayek have to do with it? He is just a commentator. When other persons invoke the commentator it is the same -- just another layer of rhetorical invocation. Whether Thatcher and Reagan invoke him or whether they do not everything is much the same. This is the historical power of capitalism. We would still be "on Maggie's Farm," and that is because that is history and that is fate. I do not know what Dylan meant exactly by the song's line, saying "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." But: there would still be fewer and fewer alternatives to free-market capitalism. We would still have gotten cornered into this system. So, in that context, I am asking: what does Hayek have to do with it?!!
Capitalism must have some kind of power and the question is that of our understanding of the why or the how of this system. One discussion we might focus on is that of the destruction of humanity. What I have come to believe over a number of years as an economic theorist is that the best thing is to intervene in the system. The question is that of how you do that. (Especially since others are now saying the same thing as I.)
Now, let's return to the original topic like a nice essay. Hayek is not causal. He is a commentator. History has taken us down a particular path. The crucial factors for making a meaningful intervention are our understanding and our honesty.
See you next time.