Wednesday, April 18, 2012

The Road to Serfdom

The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek



I bought the definitive version of this classic, published by the University of Chicago Press.  It is to be used as an academic text book.  Besides the main text, there are numerous additions including an introduction, five very long forwards/prefaces to five different editions, plus some reviews by famous readers.  This makes the pages 43% more than the original text.  The additional materials give a detailed background to the political environment at the time of writing of the book.

It is a difficult book to read.  Besides the difficult theories, the language is written in a very academic style, aggravated by long sentences which must be read twice to understand.  I took two years to complete reading, on and off during long flights on vacation trips.  At the end, I was not very sure if I understood it correctly.  I then searched for reviews and critics of the book, and found two interesting references: one is a  condensed version, and the other is a picture book further condensing it.  This finally confirmed that my understanding of the book was correct.  Democracy could be our greatest enemy leading us to serfdom.  We are in the danger of going down to serfdom and surrendering our freedom under the chaotic democratic system.

The time was the Second World War.  The greatest enemies to the British were Germany and the Soviet Union.  These were the main thrust of the book: British individualistic ideology against the Communist Soviet Union and the National Socialist Germany.  This further boiled down to personal freedom against a collectivist approach to freedom.  The Soviet Union was blamed of her planned economy, while the nationalist Germany of her fascist governance of national freedom.

The book pointed out that the democracies of UK and USA after the Second World War were going down the same path as national socialist Germany and were in the danger of leading her people to serfdom; a totalitarian government could be born.

At that time, UK after the war was plagued by inflation, taxation and the labour movement.  Taking the advantage of such resentment, the Conservative Party ordered 12,000 copies of the abridged version of this book and distributed them as election propaganda.  This showed that the ideology of Hayek was deployed to campaign against the policies of the Liberal Party.

In short, democracy is the governance by the public, hence the theory of public choice and the respect for public opinion.  The reality is that the public is the population comprises of many millions of individuals.  There could be many millions of different opinions.  The rule of governing by a majority means that many individuals are competing to be the majority.  To further complicate the problem, there are opinion leaders forming political parties whose main function is to become the majority and win elections.  This is the core characteristic of democracy where groups of individuals are organized just for that purpose.  It is no wonder in many democracies, rivalry between political parties in all fora is a common sight. This eventually leads to ineffective governance.

Ineffective governance is something not easily tolerated.  It is therefore tempting, when a good leader emerges, the public is willing to confer to him greater power so that he is in a more favourable position to govern.  This is the starting point of the path to a totalitarian government.

Hayek observed early signs where a deadlock of democracy created islands of power.  The elected government would be constantly under pressure from the legislative institution where a considerable number, though a marginally minor, would be present to block government initiatives.  Both sides would distrust the other.  On essential elements of policy where a deadlock could have serious consequences, a compromise could be the delegation of power to an independent agency hosted by professionals.  Thus many such agencies with swift power in specific areas were created.  We are seeing the same thing in Hong Kong where many essential services are under the control of high-powered agencies outside the government, incorporated by law passed by the legislature. They now include the Monetary Authority, Airport Authority, Hospital Authority, Housing Authority, Urban Renewal Authority, etc.  This list is very long.  These are pseudo totalitarian governance in miniature.

He did not stop at the intrinsic weakness of democracy.  In fact, Hayek considered at depth the path of communism and national socialism.  These two ideologies were actually the fruit of liberal thinking emerging from the awakening from feudal and theological governance.  The liberal thinking was on liberty and equality, and both the Soviet Union and Germany had an elected government claiming just that.  The problem as Hayek saw it was in organizing and planning.  Both countries were planning for the good of the nation and a fair distribution of resources.

Organizing and planning are the activities in our daily life.  We all hope things will happen as we wish towards a goal we like.  They are the bread and butter of the work of a manager, and are the core competencies of an EO.  However, Hayek saw that a plan has a tendency of moving in a fixed direction.  The planner will do what they can to make sure that it happens that way.  A powerful planner will use his power to do so.  When done in the Soviet Union and Germany, the planner actually made the citizens follow the plan, sometimes against their free will.

Hayek thought the democracy in UK and US were leading their citizens towards serfdom.  Many other democracies would also head down the same path through planning for the nation and eventually planning for the citizens.  He thought of a society where the citizens would be free from the control of the nation.  Government intervention should be kept at the absolute minimum.  The goal of governance should be one which would enable a fair playground so that citizens could exercise their free will.  However, the main problem of such governance would be a free or chaotic market where freedom of individuals could be clashing with each other.  This could be left to conciliation effort or judicial tie-breaker.  The worst that could happen would be government intervention using coercive method on the behaviour of individuals which were supposedly undesirable.  The most criticized approach is the Pigovian Tax, or sin tax, which is a kind of taxation aimed at punishing taxpayers on undesirable behaviour and changing them against their will.  In Hong Kong, we are seeing more and more such legislation.  They include the famous plastic bag tax and the now proposed garbage tax, taking away personal choice and freedom for the collective benefit.  More such measures could be taken on any behaviour considered undesirable by the government or the majority.  This is a negative approach leading to serfdom.  We should instead put our effort to positive approach in persuading people to change their behaviour under their free will.


Friday, April 6, 2012

不死之謎和人類文明

剛在美國科學人雜誌看到一篇文章,推論不死之謎和人類文明進步的關係,可當是趣文一讀,又可思考一下作者的邏輯。

死亡在人類的意識上是一件很玄妙的事。我們知道古往今來都不斷有人死亡,他人的死亡是很真實的事情,後事怎樣辦後人很清楚。但我們卻無法真正知道自己死亡後的現實是什麼。死亡的定義是一個人從有意識的生命進入無意識的狀態。我們是不能真實地意識到自己無意識時的狀態是怎樣。在此來說,自身的死亡是不真實的。這兩種概念形成一個異論,使人對死亡有恐懼感,每個人心底裡都可能有一個慾念,希望可以解開不死之謎。

要永生不死,人類有多種想法。作者將之歸納為四大類。第一類最直接的做法就是保持活著。自古以來不少人都在尋求不老的方法,其結果是無人可成功。以現時的醫學水平,似乎尚無人可活過120年。就算醫學再突飛猛進,我們只可預計人類壽命可再延長數十年。長生不老在物理上,或在熱力學原則上,最終是不可能。

第二類是復活。不是宗教迷信的復活而是科學上重做一個一模一樣保有原來記憶和思維的生物體以延續自己。這一種複製的想法有著矛盾;準確的複製品會和原品有同一樣缺點,亦會衰敗。更重要的是複製品無論如何準確其實都只是複製品而非自己。如果複製品和自己同時存在,就更突顯這個矛盾。

第三類是靈魂。幾千年來宗教都利用這個思想與身體分離的二元說法去描述死亡後生命的延續。這個無法證實的解釋信眾沒法質疑。但現代醫學、神經生物科學和心理學的研究已證實人的記憶、意志、思維、信念都要依靠腦部組織的健康。沒有身體的支持就沒有思想靈魂。物理上的死亡就是一切的終結。

第四類是傳承。人的身體隨著時間衰敗,保留下來亦沒有價值。要世世代代保留的反而是一個人做過的事,更應該是為人讚頌的功績。很多人在我們這一年代之前已死去,但仍為人所知,全因為他們有些東西或事跡遺留下來。在七十年代有一套心理學理論:恐懼管理論;它推論人類對死亡的恐懼形成潛意識的壓力,推動了人類各種行為,導致人類文明的發展。在群體層面,恐懼死亡的威脅而要保存生命的動力,驅使社群壯大,團結而建立社會、律法、宗教、文明、思考系統去理解生命。在個人層面,傳承的慾望亦驅使人類將精力投放在事業,文化藝術和建築等各種創作。

傳承還有一個方法就是傳宗接代,這其實是一切生物的本能,亦是進化論的基本原素。很多生物美化自己目的就是要吸引異性。人類在此的行為更是多采多姿,潛意識的目的就是要將自己延續下去。不少行為和文化藝術,如果不是說人生哲理,民族尊嚴,總是走不出羅曼蒂克的一套。

Sunday, April 1, 2012

金星凌日 Transit of Venus

金星凌日是一個神秘的名詞,有點像武術秘笈裡的殺著招式,又似是宗教迷信的祭神驅魔儀式。就算是科學家都會說是一個驚人的天文現象。但說穿了其實很簡單,只是金星走到地球和太陽之間的位置,在地球看到金星在太陽光面上經過。

但金星凌日事件近期被大力鼓吹,其中有特別原因。有一個金星凌日特設網站 transitofvenus.org 做了一個短片,介紹事件的前因後果和它的重要性。有興趣可點點下面圖片看看。



最切身的資料是金星凌日將於2012年6月5日發生,歷時6個小時,當日梁振英還未正式成為特首。在香港,我們可以在2012年6月6日上午看到這個現象,大約到中午就會完結。之後我們今生都無法再見到。但請大家不要蜂擁去看,電視傳播就可以了,自己看太陽幾個小時可能會眼盲。

金星和地球都繞著太陽轉,金星走到適當位置不是偶然而是必然;但因為大家軌跡和速度不同,這個最小公約數以人類時間觀來說就要很久才出現一次。根據天文學計算,金星凌日事件會大約在8年和110年交替出現。上一次是在2004年,而再下一次就要等到2117年了。雖然在地球歷史上這個現象出現過無數次,但人類有意識地觀察和理解金星凌日只是由17世紀開始。由1631年起只遇上7次。

天文學家克卜勒Kepler是預告金星凌日發生日期的第一人。他預告了1631年的金星凌日,但因發生時歐洲是晚上,所以沒有觀察成功。在1639年金星凌日再發生時,英國天文學家霍羅克斯Horrocks第一次以望遠鏡觀察,又作出準確量度和詳細記錄。之後世界就理解金星凌日的重要性,因為這個天體運動可被準確量度,就可以之推算金星和各行星的距離,和太陽系的面積。於是在18和19世紀的四次金星凌日,全世界都瘋狂起來,各國派出探險船隊到各大海洋,務求將金星凌日的每一分鐘都記錄下來。20世紀沒有金星凌日;對上一次在2004年首次有太空望遠鏡加入觀察。今年是本世紀最後一次,科學家們已做好準備。

金星凌日在科學上和宗教上都有重大意義。由哥白尼Copernicus至伽利略Galilei,在16/17世紀時天文學家已推翻了地心說而理解太陽系的結構。這些學說被宗教權力以固執的教條暴力鎮壓。當金星凌日被準確地預測又實質地觀察到,強力的事實證據就將宗教無知而堆砌出來的道學徹底推倒。人們真正感覺到太陽系的浩瀚和行星系統的奧秘,然後知悉地球的渺小。近代幾個世紀以來宗教迅速沒落,17世紀開始為人清楚認識的金星凌日是一個重要的轉捩點。

其實水星亦是位於太陽系的內軌道,所以都有凌日。但因軌道較短,幾年就有一次;又因水星體積細小,觀察較難,所以天文學家對水星凌日沒有那麼興奮。金星凌日在18世紀時還有一個發現,就是在和太陽影像非常接近時金星的圓周有模糊點,科學家因此知道金星有大氣層,干擾了太陽光;這現象在水星凌日時不明顯。這個事實十分轟動,因為證明有大氣層意味另一行星會有生命存在,對宗教是一大打擊。最新的發展是利用凌日原理,天文學家在太陽系以外發現多個系外行星exoplanets,現時已知四百多個,預計可知的會有600億個;和地球類似又有生命存在的行星一定會大量被發現。