Note to Self: Read this Later

Jesse Larner wonders if FA Hayek is relevant anymore. She notes, for instance, that his critique of socialism is really only relevant for full-blown state ownership, and not simply for government intervention (which seems to me correct). Ilma Solyin, though, says he's still relevant because of the persistence of central planning in leftist ideology. Larner points out that Hayek totally ignored voluntary collectivism, which may be more relevant today among liberals, and Solyin more or less agrees, but says Hayek actually didn't advocate against this because he didn't see it as problematic. It was the coercive collectivism that he felt was severely flawed.