Planners will tell us that the world has gotten so complicated, so busy, and so “smart” that we should no longer concern ourselves with the mundane troubles of work. They will tell us that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with economic “stuff”. These, in their minds, are the things that bring about pain, poverty, and ugliness in society. The free market doesn’t work and is proven to be a failure by the sheer numbers of people in poverty. They will tell us that worrying about “economic things” gets in the way of the “higher” things in life. They will tell us that we should give up some of our freedom, but not all of it. By only giving up economic freedom, that is by giving the planners control over the economy and the means of production, we will be even freer to pursue more “important” ends. These “ends” as they call them are the leisure and joys in life. The things we must work so hard to obtain. For me it’s camping with my family, for you it may be the theatre and for another it may be traveling to far off lands.
This argument is appealing. Afterall, if I didn’t have to stress about work (or at least the money portion of work), and could write all day, or camp, or think all day, I would presumably feel much more freedom than I do now. This concept has caught the attention of some of the most intelligent in society over the years. It’s basically a call for utopia. Again, they tell us not to be worried about losing freedom, we are only giving up the “economic” sense of freedom and nothing else.
Arguing for this fracturing of life sounds like a fantastical utopia. It sounds that way because it is fantasy. Hayek argues, that you cannot separate economic ends from other ends. This is the case because, in essence, there is no such thing as economic ends. He argues that economic “motive” as he calls it, is “merely the desire for general opportunity, the desire for power to achieve unspecified ends”. Our economic ends are actually a means to an end and not an end in and of themselves. I don’t work for money. I work for money to use as I see fit. I work for financial compensation to purchase things. He uses “unspecified ends” to bring home the point that everyone has different “ends”, different things that they want to use their money for. As an aside that can certainly be approached deeper at a later time, he points to the fallacy of detractors of money. People say “money is the root of all evil”, he points out that money is the root of all freedom. Before money was a thing as it is today, the means to move forward in society were less tangible. Sure money or currency existed in one form or another, but there was so much more to societal movement. Usually things people could not affect such as birthright and status. Sometimes it was property ownership (while most people were actually precluded for such ownership). In reality, someone else (a king or governor) chose what people were able to obtain. Choice was very limited if not non existent. Money has leveled the playing field. It’s not perfect, and some people have tougher access to earning it than others. It is however the tool to achieve all material status and no one is inherently precluded from obtaining and using it for their wishes. Unless, of course, the planners win this argument.
The ends, the new currency, of the planned society would not be money. Or at least money would not be the primary compensation or reward. Things such as status, power over others, travel, better food, better education would be the rewards. The problem is not so much these rewards, although they can be a part of the problem, the biggest problem is the lack of choice for the recipient. The planner would decide what the reward would be and that would be that. Considering this in light of what man’s true end is poses a great challenge when it comes to freedom. Remember that man does not work for money, he works for what money can do for him.