 Words at war. Tonight it's one of the most controversial problems of our times. Here's one opinion. I think government planning is the only solution to our economic problems. I think the government ought to plan for everybody to have a job. Free enterprise may have been all right once for what we need now as central planning. And the government should plan our economic welfare in peace just as it plans for victory and war. The time has come for the government to set up a planned economy. But here's another opinion, a warning bell to stop, look and listen. I think that government planning as a substitute for free enterprise is a step in the direction that Italy and Germany followed. I think that it would destroy our liberties, our freedom and our civilization. Instead of being the highway to happiness, it is the road to certain. Tonight the national broadcasting company in cooperation with the council on books and wartime brings you a radio impression of one of the most talked about books in America. It's a direct challenge to much that is being thought and spoken these days. It's one answer to the question, shall we have a planned economy directed by the government or shall we have free enterprise based on competition? Some of you may like it, some of you may not. But in keeping with the spirit of this Words at War series, here is one of the most provocative and widely discussed books of the day. We present The Road to Serpentum by Friedrich A. Hayek. I'm Friedrich Hayek, a professor of economics who has written a book. I was born in Austria and lived in Vienna until 1931. Since then I've spent my time in the United States and in England and am now a British citizen. At present I'm on the faculty of the London School of Economics. Now that I've introduced myself, I'd like to talk about my book with you. You may be a nice guy and your book may be fine, but well, a foreign professor. I don't know whether you talk my language. Yeah, those big words and all that high-brow stuff, they kind of give me a headache. Okay, you forget that I'm a foreigner and a professor and I'll drop the big words and the extra syllables. Check? I checked, Doc. Now, what's this beef about government planning? Yeah, what's wrong with the government doing some planning? I'd like to know. It seems to me, Mr. Hayek, that the large-scale problems of today require large-scale planning, such as only the government can provide. What's the matter, professor? Don't you want everybody to have a job? Naturally, we all want everybody to have a job. I'm sure I do. I like the idea of full employment, too. The question is whether you want to get it by free enterprise or by government planning. I think that if you get full employment by government planning, you'll end up with complete serfdom. No, I don't agree. What do you mean? Lose our liberty and all that stuff? Exactly. I don't see why we'd have to be slaves just because things were planned. Now, look, Doc, let's not get this confused. You'll make me forget how I figured it out. Now, I see it like this. The government should plan what's good for the country, right? That's my son. All right, full employment is good for the country, right? That's true. Therefore, the government should plan full employment. It's as simple as that. Yes. Now, let's see. A person should wear clothing in public, right? Yeah. A bathing suit is clothing, right? Yeah. Then why aren't you wearing your bathing suit? Why don't... Ah, now, Doc, that's silly. No, no, you see, it depends on what kind of clothing, wear in public, and it depends on what kind of planning, full employment under what conditions. Now, I am not against all kinds of government planning, nor against government power to enforce proper planning, but I think that the kind of planning should be decided upon and that the power should be limited. Oh, that's just a lot of talk. Look, we want jobs in the future, so let the government make sure we get them. That's all I care about, a job. Oh, you want a job, and I think free enterprise is the only way to get it and keep your liberties. Go ahead, Doc. All right. Now, let's imagine a baseball game with the government as the umpire. You're familiar with baseball, aren't you? Oh, sure. I'm gorgeous. Now, the umpire, that's the government, is supposed to regulate the game to enforce the rules. But suppose the umpire went further than that. Suppose he tried to plan the game and make the rules fit the plan. Well, let's go out to the ballpark. Yeah, it's a pleasure, Doc. Hey, look, that was three feet wide of the plate. Well, yes, but you're such a big fellow. You can reach further than the other players. But do you think it's only fair to show it? Only fair? Well, look, the plate's the plate. Now, now, let's not be unreasonable. Well, what? But it puts me on first base, huh? Now, wait, Wade, it's a pretty hard, isn't it? Yeah. Well, now, I'll tell you what. You take two bases instead of just one. What? Two bases? When a guy gets here with the ball, he gets one base. You're just the catcher around here, you understand? Gee, two bases? But umpire, a guy here with the ball gets only one base. That's not the second half. And the rules, you know that? Yes, that's true. But how was he to know the field it was going to throw home? How was he to know? But the rules, there's nothing in the rules, it says. All the same, it was a very underhanded thing to do. So the run counts. I think you're taking a very narrow point of view. After all, your side is four runs ahead now. Well, what difference does that make? I think it's only fair to give the other team more of a chance. You like close games, don't you? Well... Everyone likes a close game. All the same. If the man's out, he's out. Now look, I'm planning this game, not you. Well, of course that couldn't happen. The game has to be played by the rules. Rules that are known and established. And the umpire enforces the rules, not his own ideas as to how the game will be played. Okay, professor, okay. That's baseball. That's a game. We're talking about government control of business. That's exactly what I mean. If a baseball player has to be able to rely on an unchanging rulebook, when only a game is at stake, think how much more important dependable rules are to a businessman. When the stakes are his business and your job. Now, here's how that kind of government umpire might work out in business. Jones shoe manufacturing company. It's for you, Mr. Jones. Washington calling. Oh, yeah. Yes. Hello, this is Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones told me yourself, 50,000. Now, what a head on that. I got the leather. I'm sorry. Can't shift over to work shoes now. The cost. I can't afford it. Sweet. But there's nothing to cut. I can't cut on pay. The union will strike. I'm sorry. I suspect to have all dopes working for the government. They're not going to change the rules that way. Perhaps not, but can you guarantee that? I tell you, when you place that kind of authority in the hands of one man or a few men, you're bound to find yourself at the mercy of personal opinions and personal whims. It has happened in other countries. Now, hold on, Mr. Hayek. You said before that you weren't against all kinds of government planning. And I said that I was willing to listen. But you give me the impression now that anything the government does is wrong. No, no, I don't mean to say that. But there are two kinds of government planning. There's the kind that helps free enterprise. That is good. And there's the kind that would replace free enterprise. That is bad. Here's one kind of government planning. Government plans survey of new fabrics for clothing. That is good. It helps manufacturers make use of new opportunities. But here's another kind of planning. Government announces approved spring styles. That is bad. There would be no competition in designing and less choice for the public. Now, here's one kind of planning. Government assigns wavelengths in new broadcast band. That is good. All stations can't broadcast on the same frequency, or there would be hopeless confusion. And here's another kind of planning. Government assigns programs to radio stations. That is bad. The government is now not making sure that you can hear the radio, but is deciding what you shall hear. Now, here's one kind of planning. Government offers plan for soil erosion control. That is good. It means that more people will have a chance to make a living from the land. Here's another kind of planning. Government announces quotas for spring corn planting. That is bad. Such detailed planning can't be on a long-range basis. That means the government will not only regulate, but practically have to take over production. In other words, the one kind of planning is to put up signposts to assist the traveler in choosing his route. The other kind is to tell him which route he must take. So, remember, there's planning for and planning against free enterprise. Oh, nuts. I beg your pardon. You heard me. I said, oh, nuts. Now, maybe you're right as far as free enterprise goes, but what's so wonderful about free enterprise? Everybody's always yapping about it, always worried about how free enterprise is today. Yeah, yeah. Come to think about it. I can see how this government planning would push free enterprise around. Come to think about it again. I don't know that I care. Yeah, just what does this free enterprise mean to me? That's what I'd like to know. You Americans are the last people in the world we should have to ask. Well, let's see. You there. Who, me? Yes. Would you mind telling me where you're from? Why, I live right here in New York City. Have you always lived here? No, I come originally from a town in Illinois. How long did your family live there? Oh, I don't know. My grandfather went out there a long time ago. I see. How did he happen to go there? Well, he was a pioneer, I guess. When I was a kid, he used to talk about it. How he left New Hampshire. How did he happen to go to Illinois? Well, I guess he just decided he wanted to go. I remember he used to tell us how one time he sold all of it. That's the end of that. Are you sure you realize what you're doing, Jeb, selling all your stuff and setting off for Illinois? Yep, I thought it all over. I really got a hankering to get out of that country. But Jeb, it means leaving your home and all your friends behind. It's a mighty dangerous trip, too. I know, I know. When the time comes, a man's got to try to better himself. I don't take it easy leaving here. I've had mighty good friends, such as you, Jerry. Thanks, Jeb. But I can see something out yonder I could never have here. Well, I reckon I can understand what you mean, but you had a mighty good blacksmith's trade here, and we'll miss you that way, too. You'll find another one. In fact, it'll give someone else a chance. I know it means a lot. Risk in my home, a family, everything that I've worked for here. But I'm willing. I think that out there in Illinois, I can get something better. Have something better for the young ones. Be something better myself, maybe. I'm taking a big chance, Jeb. A man's got to risk a lot to get a lot. I'll make it out somehow, and I'll make something out of it when I get there. Don't mind saying I'm a little scared, but more than that, I like the idea of doing something alone. That's free enterprise, a man moving just because he feels like it, because he wants a chance at something better. It's a man feeling that he has a right to start from scratch on equal terms with his fellow men, and that he has a right to go as far as his courage, his work, and his ability to take him. Now, how do you think your grandfather would have felt if there'd been a government agency to say, you're a registered blacksmith. You're not needed in Illinois. You'll have to file a statement of intent to move, and then if there are no vacancies in your labor area, we'll recommend you to the nearest job. What do you suppose your grandfather would have said to that? Well, as I remember, granddaddy probably have told him ago. Maybe you better not say it. Well, okay, professor. Those pioneers were plenty brave, and that was free enterprise. But those guys yelling about free enterprise today. Big profits are what they're talking about. Big profits? Is there anything disgraceful about profits? When those men risked their money, their lives, their energy, and the hope of something better, they thought they had a right to a fair profit. So did the men who built the canals and the railroads, the men who thought that they could make better iron and steel, the men who gambled on the harvesting machine, and the men who bet they could make and sell automobiles. Why shouldn't they make a fair profit? Have a reward for their courage and effort. All right, all right, but all that's history-book stuff. Once upon a time free enterprise could work, maybe. But it hasn't got anything to do with us today. Doesn't it? Doesn't it have anything to do with us today? I've heard about a man in our day who left school to become an errand boy for a photographer in Little New York Town. He bought out his employer, then decided to change his line of work. He became a salesman for a paving contractor, but then decided that he could do a better job himself. I'll just a minute, and I'll tell you. He saved enough money to get a couple of secondhand mixers, and soon he was building highways by new methods, and when he couldn't buy the equipment he wanted, he built it himself. He liked a big job. When a chance came along to build the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge, he built it. Then there was talk of a big dam, Boulder Dam. He said, I can build dams, too, and he built it. The war came along, and there were ships to be built. He said, I know something rather about how to build things. I can build ships, too. He did, for his name is Henry J. Kaiser. I knew it. Now, that is free enterprise at work, friend. That's what we're talking about, and don't kid yourself that free enterprise doesn't work today. The government planned to strengthen the Navy, but it was men like Henry Kaiser who planned the building of the ships and built them. Photographers, salesmen, paving contractor, dam builder, bridge builder, ship builder. And his dream of huge cargo planes can be part of America tomorrow. Now, that is not a career that the government would plan. He did the planning. Just remember that the more planning the government does for the individual, the less opportunity the individual has to plan for himself. Let's quit being ashamed for free enterprise. It has served democracy well, and perhaps democracy had better recognize it. Look, Mr. Hayek, speaking for myself at least, I do like the idea of free enterprise, but we're not all Henry J. Kaiser's. I never said that I particularly like the idea of giving the government control of everything, but just being fair, you take the way it is now. It seems to me that big business is in control of everything. Business in control of everything? That's just not true, but if it were, would you take the power away from business and give it to the government? Yes, I think I would. But look, when you take power away from business and give it to the government, you don't destroy that power, you increase it. I don't see why, Doc. There isn't any more power, it's just the government has it. And I think I can control that power better if the government has it instead of business. Realizer, you can't. Actually, there's a great deal more power when the government has it because it's concentrated. Now, I'll grant you. If you show me a hundred wealthy industrialists, they represent a lot of power. But it's not all in the hands of one of them or even a small group of them. They too have their differences after all they're in competition with each other. Now, when it's all in the hands of one group, as it would have to be in the hands of a central group to make central planning work, the power is magnified. Well, I don't see how it could be much worse than it is now. As far as I can see, my boss, by using the power of the dollar, has as much control over my life as the government could ever have. You can say that again. Maybe I wouldn't like some government regulations. But what about the spot I'm in now? Sure, I can gride, but what else can I do about it? All right. Here's something that might happen in normal times in America. You come home from work and... Oh, it's you, Jim. Yeah, it's me. You sure scared me the way you slammed that door. I'm sorry, honey. I guess I'm just kind of burned up. Tired, aren't you, darling? Oh, it's not that. It's that boss of mine. I'd like to sock him on the nose, that big fat... Oh, no, no, Jim, you can't very well do that. No, can't... No, I suppose not, but I sure get awful fed up. I know you do, dear. Look, why don't you just start looking for another job? Even if you made a little less money, I wouldn't mind if you were happier. You're swell, baby. I just didn't want to say anything to you about it. Thought it would worry you. But if you feel that way, I'll start looking tomorrow. That's one thing you can do about it. Now, it isn't always easy to get a new job, and a man can't afford to throw up jobs just because he doesn't like the boss' neck tonight. Nevertheless, he is free to look for another job, to quit work, move to another place. But what if it were under government-planned economy? Oh, it's you, Jim. Gee, what's the matter? I'm sorry, honey, but you know what's the matter. What's always the matter? That's supervisor again. I don't know what's wrong with that guy, but he sure's got it in for me somehow. Oh, Jim, can't you get transferred or get a release or something? Oh, honey, we've talked that all over a dozen times. It wouldn't give me a transfer just out of spite. You can't get a release just by saying you don't like your boss. Even if you just apply for one, it goes on your record. Now, you just got to keep your mouth shut and hope he drops dead or something. That, friends, is serfdom. If you can't quit your job, if you're not free to leave the place you work, you're serf. And it can happen. We've seen countries where it has happened. Well, that's something that worries me too, Mr. Hayek. You know, when times are good, it's easy to keep our rights. But when times get tough, when jobs are scarce, well, let's something else again. I'll say it is. Freedom, liberty, rights, well, they're all nice things, but they're not very nourishing. Now, what good are rights if it's the right to starve to death? And freedom. What good is freedom if it's a freedom to skip dinner and then skip supper, too? And liberty. Yeah, liberty and five cents will get you a cup of coffee, but you've got to have the five cents. Yeah, no, Mr. Hayek, he's not all wrong about that. When things are bad, well, you can hardly blame people for feeling that their rights aren't so important. Perhaps you're willing to give up your rights, your freedom, and your liberty to win some security. But it's not a new solution to your troubles. I've heard it said before that democracy is outworn, outmoded, no longer useful. A man got up in Italy not so long ago. He stood on a balcony, stuck out his chin, and told the Italian people that they need not be hungry nor pressed. He would look after them and see to it that their babies were fed and that he had a plan that would solve all their troubles. All they had to do was give up their liberties, let him decide what they were to read, when they were to work, and how much they should be paid. People listened to him. And you know what happened to them? Those babies they loved. After he had humiliated them, tortured them, made them the scorn of the earth, they took him in their bitterness and hung him up by the heels in a square of Milan. And the little man got up in Germany, told the Germans what that they need not be hungry and oppressed. That he would look after them and see that their babies were fed. That he had a plan that would solve all their troubles. All they had to do was to give up their liberties. And the people listened to him and you know what happened to them and to the babies they loved. After they had become less than men, after they had become the scorn of the earth and the despised of history, they find themselves without food, without honor, and without hope. Just a minute, Doc. This is America. This is different. I mean, after all, we got a democracy. Now, here in wartime, we give guys lots of power to get stuff done, don't we? It's all the same. We haven't served them. Anyhow, I don't feel like no surfer. Yes, that's true. And the reason is... The reason is because they're our powers. As long as we got the final say as we have in a democracy, we can give our government all the powers we want to. I wish you were right. The fact that it's democratic power doesn't mean that it won't be abused. The power must be limited. In wartime, it is limited by the fact that it's granted only for the purpose of war. But if we carried such powers over into peacetime to solve our economic problems, they wouldn't be limited. Now, look, Professor, I'm still not scared. Okay, so with the government in control, you got regimentation. So what? I don't mind being regimented a little. Is that so? I wonder how much of it you've endured. Pardon me. Would you come up a minute, Sergeant? Sure. What is it? How do you like being in the army? Well... How would you like it if there weren't any war? If there weren't any war, then I wouldn't be in the army. But you said you liked it in the army. Well, sure, but that's different. Anyone can see that. I mean, well, I'm proud of this uniform. But when the war's over, I'm going to get it off so fast that it'd make your head swim. Enough said. And I think the point is clear. These boys are proud to wear our uniforms. They're willing to be told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, when to eat, when to sleep and all the rest of it to help win this war. But when that duty is over, it's out of uniform, and that is as it should be. When you give up your liberties for a limited period of time to protect your country, that is patriotism. But if you give up your liberties just for security, that is serfdom. Ask any German. May I congratulate you, Mr. Hague? Thank you, sir. I'm a businessman, and you've expressed just what I've always thought. If the government would just get out of business and let us alone. But no, all the time new rules, new regulations, new plans. Just what things do you have in mind, sir? Oh, you know, social security, old age pensions, all that nonsense, and investigations. Oh, I don't know why. Just a second, Mr. Businessman. I'm afraid you haven't been listening very closely. The things you've mentioned don't necessarily interfere with free enterprise. I happen to think that the government should plan to protect every citizen against privation and hardship which he suffers through no fault of his own. But I thought that, well, government interference, it makes it awfully hard for the businessman. Yes, you too have to sacrifice for freedom, you know. Short-sighted businessmen have made it difficult to defend free enterprise because they wanted to be not only free but also easy. You've got to be just as much for proper governmental regulations as you are against undesirable regulations. You've got to encourage the right kind of government planning or you'll get the wrong kind. Monopoly, the restraint of free trade, and special privileges are the enemies of free enterprise just as much as central government planning is. Mr. Hayek, thinking it over now, you know, none of us want to give up our liberties, and most of us, at least, don't want a lot of government control. Now, you said if we don't get the good government planning, we'll get the bad. Now, just which is which again? How can we judge? Well, ask yourself whether the planning makes competition more free and more fair, or whether it substitutes something else for competition. Eternal vigilance is the price of your freedom in politics. It is also the price of your freedom in enterprise. Mr. Hayek, you mentioned that wartime restriction shouldn't be carried over into peacetime. As opposed to the more quickly they're abolished, the better. No, no, on the contrary. To avoid confusion and hardship, we should readjust to peacetime slowly. But we should be planning to return to free enterprise, not planning to make wartime controls permanent. Now, look, Professor, you said some stuff that I guess I'll have to think over. But it's still a fact that free enterprise just hasn't worked, at least not to my satisfaction. Nor to mine. But I think the trouble is not that free enterprise has failed, nor that it hasn't been fully tried. You can criticize your American democracy too, if you like. It hasn't worked to everyone's satisfaction at all times. But I think you'd agree that what you need is more democracy, not less. And I think what you need is more freedom of enterprise, not less. It's natural to be dissatisfied with what hasn't worked out perfectly. But in your dissatisfaction, you may do what some other nations have done. I ask you to remember one thing. When government planning takes the place of free enterprise, you're on the road to serfdom. Tonight on Words at War, we've brought you a radio impression of the Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek, as prepared by Jack Wilson. Louis Van Rooten was heard as Hayek. The music was arranged and played by William Meader, and by John Garnett Garrison. Next week, Words at War will present the radio dramatization of Wartime Racketeers by Harry Lever and Joseph Young. This series of programs is brought to you in cooperation with the Council on Books and Wartime, by the National Broadcasting Company, and the independent radio stations associated with the NBC network. This is the National Broadcasting Company.