---

[The Ghost of Highbury: Searching for Hayek in the Modern British State]

Friedrich Hayek, the patron saint of the "spontaneous order," warned that the road to serfdom is paved with central planning and the erosion of economic liberty. In 2026, as the UK navigates a post-Brexit, high-tax, and highly regulated environment, the question arises: Does any political party truly follow Hayek in both words and acts?

The Contenders and the Critique

1. The Conservative Party (Tory)

• The Words: Historically, the Tories claim Hayek as their intellectual forefather (famously championed by Margaret Thatcher). Figures like Liz Truss or Jacob Rees-Mogg frequently invoke "supply-side reform" and "smaller state" rhetoric.

• The Acts: In practice, the modern Conservative legacy has been one of record-high tax burdens and massive state intervention (e.g., during the pandemic and energy crises). Hayek would view their "industrial strategies" and net-zero regulations as a "pretence of knowledge"—the belief that bureaucrats can direct a complex economy better than the market.

2. Reform UK

• The Words: Lead figures like Richard Tice and Nigel Farage lean into Hayekian themes of deregulation and smashing the "managerial class." They argue for a drastic reduction in the size of the civil service.

• The Acts: While they talk the talk of the free market, their platform often tilts toward populist nationalism. Hayek was an internationalist who supported the free movement of labor and capital; Reform’s protectionist leanings on immigration and trade often clash with Hayek’s vision of a borderless spontaneous order.

3. The Labour Party & Liberal Democrats

• The Critique: Neither party pretends to be Hayekian. Keir Starmer’s Labour prioritizes "Securonomics"—a form of modern state-led investment that Hayek would explicitly define as "The Road to Serfdom." The Lib Dems, despite their name, focus more on social liberalism than the radical economic Manchester-school liberalism Hayek admired.

Who is the Real Follower?

If we are honest, no major party follows Hayek in acts. The modern UK state has become what Hayek feared: a "Transfer State" where a vast portion of the population depends on government redistribution.

The closest "Hayekians" are found in the fringes or think tanks (like the IEA), but in Westminster, the political cost of genuine Hayekian policy—slashing the NHS budget or ending all subsidies—is considered electoral suicide. The "words" are used as a brand, but the "acts" remain firmly collectivist.

---

---

[Can AI Achieve Perfect Fairness? When Hayek Meets "Digital Planned Economy"]

In today’s world of rapid technological advancement—with Artificial Intelligence (AI), massive databases, electronic currency, and ubiquitous monitoring—a new voice has emerged: "If the human brain cannot calculate precisely enough, why not let a supercomputer do it?" Proponents argue that modern technology can accurately calculate everyone's needs, achieve optimal wealth distribution, and ensure absolute equality, thereby eliminating resource waste once and for all.

However, if Friedrich Hayek were alive today, he would offer a profound warning against this "Illusion of Technocratic Totalitarianism."

1. The Nature of Knowledge: Big Data Cannot Capture "Local Knowledge"

In his seminal work The Use of Knowledge in Society, Hayek emphasized that the knowledge required for society to function is fragmented, subjective, and constantly changing. While AI is powerful, it processes "historical data."

• Hayek’s Rebuttal: Human preferences, creativity, and intuitions about future risks often occur in specific times and places (what he called "the particular circumstances of time and place"). This minute, unquantifiable "local knowledge" cannot be encoded into a massive database. When a government relies on AI for planning, it effectively stifles the flexibility of individuals to adapt to their circumstances, leading to social stagnation.

2. The Evolution of Power: From "Ration Coupons" to "Digital Credit"

Past planned economies relied on physical coupons to control resources; today, this could evolve into precise behavioral steering via electronic currency and surveillance systems.

• Hayek’s Rebuttal: If a government controls all consumer data and electronic payment permissions, it possesses "absolute coercive power." This is no longer merely economic management; it is the power of life and death. Once a government can decide who has the right to buy goods or whose "social credit score" is too low to board a train based on an AI's judgment, the universality of law vanishes, replaced by the autocracy of "technocrats."

3. The Chain Effect of Freedom: No Political Independence Without Economic Independence

Proponents believe AI can precisely distribute wealth to achieve equality, but Hayek pointed out that this "equality of result" comes at the cost of "depriving the right to choose."

• Hayek’s Rebuttal: Economic freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms. When an AI decides where you "should" live, what you "should" eat, and what job you "should" hold (because the system calculated that it is most efficient for society), you lose everything. Without the opportunity to risk failure or success in a market, humans devolve into a type of "digital serf," dependent on the system's rations to survive.

4. The Fallacy of Efficiency: No Evolution Without Competition

AI-planned economies pursue "Static Efficiency"—how to allocate existing resources.

• Hayek’s Rebuttal: True progress comes from the continuous "trial and error" and "discovery" found in market competition. If everything is pre-arranged by a central AI, humanity loses the drive to explore the unknown and create new demands. A perfectly planned economy is, in fact, a society that has stopped progressing.

5. Conclusion: Technology Should Be a "Tool for Liberty," Not a "Blueprint for Enslavement"

Hayek did not oppose technology; he opposed the "Pretense of Knowledge" that occurs when technology is deified. AI should be used to assist individuals in making better decisions, not to replace the individual's right to decide. If we blindly believe that Big Data can bring ultimate equality, we may eventually find ourselves on a fast track to "serfdom," paved by algorithms.

---

---

【AI 真的能達成完美的公平嗎？當海耶克遇上「數位計畫經濟」】

在科技日新月異的今天，隨著人工智慧（AI）、海量數據庫、電子貨幣以及全方位監控技術的成熟，社會上出現了一種新的聲音：「如果人類腦袋算不準，那讓超級電腦來算呢？」支持者認為，現在的技術已經可以精準計算每個人的需求，實現財富的最優分配與絕對平等，徹底解決資源浪費問題。

然而，如果海耶克活在 2026 年，他會對這種「科技極權的幻象」提出最深刻的警告。

一、 知識的本質：大數據無法捕捉的「局部知識」

海耶克在《知識在社會中的利用》中強調，社會運作所需的知識是碎片化、主觀且瞬息萬變的。AI 雖然強大，但它處理的是「歷史數據」。

• 海耶克的反擊：人的偏好、創意以及對未來風險的直覺，往往發生在特定的時間與空間（他稱為「時空的具體情況」）。這些微小的、不可量化的「局部知識」，無法被編碼進大型數據庫中。當政府依賴 AI 進行計畫，實際上是抹殺了個體因地制宜的靈活性，導致社會僵化。

二、 權力的進化：從「糧票」到「數位信用」

過去的統制經濟靠糧票控管物資，現在則可能演變為透過電子貨幣與監控系統來精準導引行為。

• 海耶克的反擊：如果政府掌握了所有人的消費數據與電子支付權限，它就擁有了「絕對的強制力」。這不再只是經濟管理，而是生殺大權。一旦政府可以根據 AI 的判斷來決定誰有權購買商品、誰的社會信用分數不足以搭乘高鐵，那麼法律的通用性就消失了，取而代之的是「科技官僚」的獨裁。

三、 自由的連鎖效應：沒有經濟獨立，就沒有靈魂自由

支持者認為 AI 可以精準分配財富達成平等，但海耶克指出，這種「結果平等」必須以「剝奪選擇權」為代價。

• 海耶克的反擊：經濟自由是所有自由的基礎。當 AI 決定了你「應該」住哪裡、吃什麼、從事什麼工作（因為系統算出那樣對社會最有效率）時，你便失去了一切。沒有了在市場中失敗或成功的冒險機會，人就退化成了一種「數位農奴」，依附於系統的配給而活。

四、 效率的偽命題：缺乏競爭，何來演化？

AI 計畫經濟追求的是「靜態的效率」（Static Efficiency），即如何分配現有資源。

• 海耶克的反擊：真正的進步來自於市場競爭中不斷的「試錯」與「發現」。如果一切都由中央 AI 預先安排好，人類將失去探索未知、創造新需求的動力。一個完美的計畫經濟，其實是一個停止進步的社會。

五、 結語：科技應該是「自由的工具」，而非「奴役的藍圖」

海耶克並不反對科技，他反對的是將科技神格化後的「理性狂妄」。AI 應該用來輔助個人做出更好的決策，而不是替代個人做出決定。如果我們迷信大數據能帶來終極平等，我們最終可能發現，我們正走在一條由演算法鋪成的、通往奴役的快車道上。