Hayek vies on the ignorance of society is a refreshing change from the average intellectual read. His acknowledgement, “that our knowledge is far from perfect” brings a nice dose of humility to the table. For the most part I agree with most of the points that Hayek raises, that people are ignorant, perfect knowledge is unattainable, freedom promotes growth. But there was one point in this section where I strongly disagree with Hayek:
"Certainty we cannot achieve in human affairs, and it is for this reason that, to make the best use of what knowledge we have, we must adhere to rules which experience has shown to serve best on the whole, though we do not know what will be the consequences of obeying them in the particular instance."
Although I might agree with Hayek in terms of how attainable certainty is, that is where I stop. This whole concept of adhering to rules merely because they have worked once or twice in the past therefore they must always work chokes the breathe out of change. Hayek points out that even when following familiar “rules” one cannot predict the consequences in any given instance, so my question is why follow “the rules”? If the only thing that is certain is uncertainty why not step outside of the status quo (I use this word cautiously and remind you all I am no economist) and revolutionize instead of doing the same thing over and over again. Adhering to rules scares me because when societies mindlessly follow rules they cease to think for themselves, and when societies cease to think for themselves not only are individual freedoms lost, but an infinite amount of presently unknown possibilities will die away. Think of all the music that would never be if all the worlds’ musicians had chose merely to “adhere to rules”.