Maybe Ayn Rand was that Omniscient person. haha

That's the way Db comes across for sure. haha

Ok, every word Rand wrote is perfect and Hayek is evil incarnate.

But he's point out that it's not possible and so he's not for a statist government. And if there was an omniscient person who knew all my present and future needs and wants that certainly wouldn't be statist as we view it today either.

Yes, but if you read his whole point he thinks reason is limited He is not a defender of individual rights, he things they are some sort of societal evolution and cannot be justified by reason.

Yes that was the point. Hayek is inadequate, but if it was not he would be all for statist government.

Rand did not say it. Hayek's only defense of Freedom is a limitation of reason. That is evil.

Here's a quote from Hayek's book, The Fatal Conceit. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." That quote furthers my point that Hayek doesn't believe in an all knowing individual that was referred to in your quote Db.

So he's saying he couldn't understand Hayek and he is forming an opinion based on someone else's book review of Hayek? Perhaps you mean he is giving credit to someone else for his view because he didn't originate it?

I view both Hayek and Rand with respect. Neither is completely correct about everything but both are correct to a great degree.
From your comments it appears that the argument is about each author's expectations of performance of individuals. Rand appears to hold individual performance as the highest measure of humankind. To me, this is a very admirable and optimistic view and challenges every individual to aspire to his best. Your quote is not a complete description of Hayek's views, but (imo) it is more a look at Hayek's observations of real human activity and its imperfections. Hayek may be the opposite of the attitude of hubris that oozes from every pore of the politicians and bureaucrats of our day. (If I had been Hayek's publisher I would have demanded that he re-write that line because it so misrepresents the message of the book. )
Hayek goes on to say, in the same paragraph as your quote:
"Liberty is essential in order to leave room for the unforeseeable and unpredictable."
Hayek is recognizing that liberty allows freedom of thought and free will, and that with free will of individuals that no one can be omniscient. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

I don't have to agree with every word that Rand (or Hayek) wrote to accept much of her (his) message.
Link to the complete book:
http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/tc...

That quote you bring up Db you're missing Hayek's entire point. He's saying that if there were omniscient men that could predict all future wants and desires for individuals then there would be little case for liberty. You might realize that what Hayek is saying is an impossibility! So he is a staunch supporter of liberty because there can never be an all knowing, omniscient man on earth!

Actually Hayek is a horrible defender of capitalism, here is an exact quote from him "“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty”

No he is not saying he has not read Hayek, he is saying that his understanding of Hayek's premise comes from other sources. And by the way is absolutely correct. Here is an exact quote from Hayek “If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty”

I noted that you were not an Austrian economist in my book review.

"Ayn Rand’s thought moves on a plane never even glimpsed by most of those who consider themselves intellectuals—including, unfortunately, some who are taken to be the strongest advocates of capitalism."

I thought that the article was extremely pro-Rand..." The lady doth protest too much, methinks " !

So an author who hasn't read Hayek is supposed to be regarded as an expert to argue against Hayek's point of view. Not rational.

Another reason why I am not an Austrian.

“In a way, this (Hayek’s) is an argument from ignorance: the planners can’t know enough to issue the right decrees. In its simpler form, it’s the argument that you can’t force a person to do what’s best for him because only he can know what’s best for him, which is an argument one often hears from conservatives.”