In his work, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek first opposes all forms of economic planning, but as you delve further into his writings, he changes his view of such planning completely. He realizes that without some form of protectionist regulation, a market economy cannot survive. Hayek is correct in acknowledging the fact that the market must be checked by some form of economic planning. However, his argument fails to establish well-defined boundaries for this regulation. Hayek claims that planning severely restricts individual freedom, but then contradicts himself by supporting this same regulation that he believes has led to the demise of the liberal system, and the formation of totalitarianism. Hayek is correct in recognizing both the weaknesses of the self-regulating market, and the resulting necessity for some form of regulation, but his argument fails to support his claim that the economic planning within a market system inevitably leads to a totalitarian regime.
             Let us now investigate exactly what it is that Hayek is proposing. At the beginning of his argument, Hayek appears intent on placing the blame for the emergence of totalitarian regimes solely upon the surfacing socialist ideas of the time. He claims that "Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies" (Hayek 6). If Hayek believes fascism and nazism to be the inevitable outcomes of these socialist "tendencies," one would not expect him to support such economic planning. However, Hayek later explains that certain regulation must be utilized to provide for the stabilization of the market. At this point, Hayek undermines his previous rejections of economic regulations. He now asserts that the fluctuations of the market, and the resulting unemployment must be controlled through economic planning: "But, though its solution wil...