If Socialists Understood Economics, They

Each Member Of Society Can Have Only A Small Fraction Of The Knowledge Possessed By All, And...each Is Therefore Ignorant Of Most Of The Facts On Which The Working Of Society Rests...civilization Rests On The Fact That We All Benefit From Knowledge Which We Do Not Possess. And One Of The Ways In Which Civilization Helps Us To Overcome That Limitation On The Extent Of Individual Knowledge Is By Conquering Intelligence, Not By The Acquisition Of More Knowledge, But By The Utilization Of Knowledge Which Is And Which Remains Widely Dispersed Among Individuals.

The Successful Politician Owes His Power To The Fact That He Moves Within The Accepted Framework Of Thought, That He Thinks And Talks Conventionally. It Would Be Almost A Contradiction In Terms For A Politician To Be A Leader In The Field Of Ideas. His Task In A Democracy Is To Find Out What The Opinions Held By The Largest Number Are, Not To Give Currency To New Opinions Which May Become The Majority View In Some Distant Future.

...the Case For Individual Freedom Rests Largely On The Recognition Of The Inevitable And Universal Ignorance Of All Of Us Concerning A Great Many Of The Factors On Which The Achievements Of Our Ends And Welfare Depend.

It Is When It Is Contended That "in A Democracy Right Is What The Majority Makes It To Be" That Democracy Degenerates Into Demagoguery.

The Principle That The End Justifies The Means Is In Individualist Ethics Regarded As The Denial Of All Morals. In Collectivist Ethics It Becomes Necessarily The Supreme Rule.