Political Theory

Re: Hayek and the free market

jtucker — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:16:16 GMT

Hayek was a great thinker but there are aspects of this book that have not stood the test of time. Two things I think explain these unfortunate comments: 1) he was surrounded completely by socialists and he wanted to concede as much to them as possible in the hope that they would otherwise listen to him, and 2) I think he was genuinely convinced that one reason Mises's influence in Vienna has been limited was due to his political dogmatism, and Hayek did not want to go that route. I don't think he took the right path and yet we really have to put ourselves in his shoes and try to imagine what he was trying to achieve. The other thing is just to read this book and learn from it while ignoring these few passages that are otherwise uncharacteristic of his overall worldview. In any case, one thing you find after reading deeply in this literature is that few are as good as Mises and Rothbard.

Re: Hayek and the free market

scineram — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:00:50 GMT

I have no idea. Maybe they cherish him as an economist, not a political philosopher.

Proves you cannot see when you are on the road to serfdom.

Hayek and the free market

Sphairon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:52:38 GMT

A couple of days ago, I began reading Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". As it was written in a time of rising social democracy in England and socialism of all kinds plaguing central Europe, I expected a blazing defense of individualism, free trade and freedom of contract. And this is what I got on the first few pages already:

It is important not to confuse opposition against this kind of planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument is in favor of making the best possible use of the forces of competiton as a means of coordinating human efforts, not an argument for leaving things just as they are.

... where it is impossible to create the conditions necessary to make competition effective, we must resort to other methods of guiding economic activity.

This [disturbing the market] is not necessarily true, however, of measures restricting the allowed methods of production, so long as these restrictions affect all potential producers equally ...

... to limit working hours ... is fully compatible with the preservation of competition.

Hayek has made it clear to me on the first 20 pages of his book that he doesn't care too much about non-aggression or freedom, but about "competition". Fine.

That, however, makes me wonder why Hayek is so cherished especially among libertarians?