Interesting.
Can you cite/quote this in Hayek's work (my blog has citations), that central planning is always bad? The infrastructure for the American constitution was centrally planned, planned by a relatively select few, do you claim Hayek was wholeheartedly against it?
I am surprised, you wrote a patronizing blog post explaining Hayek's thoughts but you ask citations about two really trivial point of his thoughts.
I am also surprised that you speak about the Constitutions. You don't seem to understand that this point doesn't relate to the topic of central planning. When one talk about central planning it relates about economic activity, not laws or politics (even if Hayek explains why all is interconnected, but it's not your point). A Constitution is not a plan, a Constitution is law.
You blog post haven't any citation "I’m not going to cite Hayek"
https://medium.com/@rextar4444/central-planning-the-kind-we-should-fear-and-the-kind-that-is-helpful-bb323a0284ad#.s4y03xgds
Planning, Science and Freedom, Hayek :
The reasons why the adoption of a system of central planning necessarily produces a totalitarian system are fairly simple. Whoever controls the means must decide which ends they are to serve. As under modern conditions control of economic activity means control of the material means for practically all our ends, it means control over nearly all our activities. The nature of the detailed scale of values which must guide the planning makes it impossible that it should be determined by anything like democratic means. The director of the planned system would have to impose his scale of values, his hierarchy of ends, which, if it is to be sufficient to determine the plan, must include a definite order of rank in which the status of each person is laid down. If the plan is to succeed or the planner to appear successful, the people must be made to believe that the objectives chosen are the right ones. Every criticism of the plan or the ideology underlying it must be treated as sabotage. There can be no freedom of thought, no freedom of the Press, where it is necessary that everything should be governed by a single system of thought.
Satoshi created bitcoin and left it the way it is, if you have read Hayek how does he feel that people feel entitled to changing his project when they could otherwise create their own?
Everybody should be free to change the Bitcoin project and let the market decides which change is better. Lightning and Sidechains are fine if there is significant blocksize increase alongside.
I think the market will prefer on chain scaling and not use off chain solutions. But I may be wrong so it's best to have all the options on the table (offchain and onchain scaling) and see what happens in a real world environment.
Small blockists are no as humble, they don't understand how clueless they are regarding what the market will choose.
Can you quote where Hayek calls reason limited? For some problems I think it is true the markets are smarter in a sense. But what we have here is a collective of individuals, each that are suggesting they themselves are smarter than the engineers, and the engineers keep suggesting that the network, the market that exists, does not agree with the individuals complaints
You will find all the citations you need regarding Hayek antirationalism in this book :
https://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Conceit-Errors-Socialism-Collected/dp/0226320669
You should read it, it's a fascinating book.
Within it, Hayek explains why engineers are more prone to the hybris of central planning. Since they are smart, they overemphasize reason and are bling to everything else that matters. They tend to not understand how the complexities of the civilization arise without any conscious design.
Market is a way to coordinate human activity, scattered wisdom is convey by market prices and humans follow the signals send by the prices. The order, efficiency and prosperity are not a conscious process, they don't come from a top down construction. The order, efficiency and prosperity are emerging, it's a bottom up process.
Individuals are not claiming they are smarter than engineers, they just want to use stuff that matches their need. The problem starts when engineers are claiming they understand better than individuals what individuals need.
It's not to say that individuals are better than engineers. Engineers are very efficient at a tiny thing, but they suck at everything else that is important.
