So, what's your point? Is there a subliminal message in there about America becoming a socialist nation, as the RWNJs have as one of their campaign platforms? Because if there is, it is phony, false fearmongering. Nobody - as in NOBODY with ANY public voice - has proposed socialist planning for the US.
Hayek was one of the most hard-right, laissez-faire capitalists we have yet seen. He had opinions. But when he wrote The Road to Serfdom, his only examples of socialism were the USSR, China, Cuba, and maybe a few insignificant countries like Venezuela. It is no surprise that these same countries are the ones used by the right to spread fear in Americans. But none of these countries apply to ideas in America, even among hard leftists like Bernie Sanders.
"Socialism" as a major economic system exists only in China (diminishing), Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, and maybe Venezuela today. Several others have "socialism" or a "socialist society" as a goal in their Constitution preambles, but always attached to one form or another of democracy. But many other countries, like in Western Europe, have hybrid systems that provide strong social benefits, but without central planning. As does the US. The US could easily become a Social Democracy without any central planning. But as capitalist as the US is, it is on a clear path to authoritarianism.
The most dishonest part about the story is saying that socialism leads to dictatorships. Yes, with the few examples we have we can verify this. But that ignores the additional information that should be included, that most dictatorships are NOT socialist countries. It is telling that your points starting with number 10 describe the current trend in America today, perfectly, to a T.
One last point. Hayek was OK with governmental regulation of production methods, e.g., environmental controls or work safety protocols, pollution controls, other controls to reduce negative externalities, controlling fraud, and even was in favor of socialist safety nets for food, housing, and clothing. As right-wing conservative as he was, he was not nearly as laissez-faire as people think. He might almost be considered a Social Democrat.
