"The slippery slope" and "there are only two stable equilibria" are different versions of the same claim.
If you think in terms of optimization theory, this ought to be obvious. Picture the energy required to maintain the system as an inverse U. The system always returns to one end or the other. If a shock moves it far from the good equilibrium at one end, it will inexorably slide to the bad equilibirum unless some new shock reverses the first one.
Thanks for the comment. Formally, I agree. But note that the very notion of "slippery slope" connotes the idea that the kind of snow-bowling effect you describe works only in one direction - from liberal democracy to totalitarianism. That explains why Hayek has been read as giving a deterministic account of the inevitability of totalitarianism as soon as the state interferes with private affairs. I don't think this is the correct reading of TRTS, first because Hayek does not say that the state should not interfere and second because the message is more something like "we rest currently on an unstable equilibrium and are on the verge of falling within the basin of attraction of totalitarianism, but if we react timely and properly we can still steer society in the direction of liberal democracy."
Clarifying a bit further, the natural reading of Hayek is that the policies advocated by the Briitish Labour party, if implemented, would put Britain on the wrong side of the peak, and therefore on a slippery slide to serfdom. The policies were mostlu implemented and the slide didn't take place.
I think Hayek's response is that he was talking about comprehensive economic planning, which didn't take place. But once Thatcher came in, he was happy to have TRTS cited against the welfare state.
"The slippery slope" and "there are only two stable equilibria" are different versions of the same claim.
If you think in terms of optimization theory, this ought to be obvious. Picture the energy required to maintain the system as an inverse U. The system always returns to one end or the other. If a shock moves it far from the good equilibrium at one end, it will inexorably slide to the bad equilibirum unless some new shock reverses the first one.
Thanks for the comment. Formally, I agree. But note that the very notion of "slippery slope" connotes the idea that the kind of snow-bowling effect you describe works only in one direction - from liberal democracy to totalitarianism. That explains why Hayek has been read as giving a deterministic account of the inevitability of totalitarianism as soon as the state interferes with private affairs. I don't think this is the correct reading of TRTS, first because Hayek does not say that the state should not interfere and second because the message is more something like "we rest currently on an unstable equilibrium and are on the verge of falling within the basin of attraction of totalitarianism, but if we react timely and properly we can still steer society in the direction of liberal democracy."
Clarifying a bit further, the natural reading of Hayek is that the policies advocated by the Briitish Labour party, if implemented, would put Britain on the wrong side of the peak, and therefore on a slippery slide to serfdom. The policies were mostlu implemented and the slide didn't take place.
I think Hayek's response is that he was talking about comprehensive economic planning, which didn't take place. But once Thatcher came in, he was happy to have TRTS cited against the welfare state.
At the very least, a motte and bailey argument