Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Hayekian anarchism?

This post has 11 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 133
Points 2,580
Alex Habighorst Posted: Thu, Jun 10 2010 12:07 PM

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/12/the-false-dichotomy-of-rothbardian-anarchism-and-hayekian-classical-liberalism.html

I just read this blog post by Steven Horowitz, and I thought it was quite interesting. To me Hayek is one of the most stimulating figures in the Austrian tradition however I have always gravitated towards anarcho-capitalism as the end results of my philosophic musings and never really saw a problem of integrating parts of Hayek into that as well as Rothbard.

"Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act."-Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 12:42 PM

 

Here is my personal take on it.

It's a completely fallacious dichotomy - Rothbard vs Hayek - that you cannot understand until you study their material and realize that

1.  Some of them misinterpret Mises in the most disturbing way.

2.  They practically don't understand Rothbard in depth and  tend to overemphasize his minor differences with Mises.

3.  They are very selective in what they like about Hayek.  

4.  They have much more in common with Monetarists then with Misesian/Austrian economics.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 12:51 PM

Rothbard turns me off due his reliance on natural rights; I'm not sure if I'll ever finish his stuff beyond "For A New Liberty" (& summaries of other works) because of this.  

Wouldn't "Hayekian anarchism" simply be Consequentualist Anarchism?  I'll have to read this a little bit later...  

 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

 

Nitroadict:
Rothbard turns me off due his reliance on natural rights; I'm not sure if I'll ever finish his stuff beyond "For A New Liberty" (& summaries of other works) because of this.

I wouldn't let it get to you. To be honest, I've read quite a bit of Rothbard, EOL is obviously full of Natural Rights stuff, For a New Liberty has some good stuff (some of it is natural rights but not all imo), but if you read his history or economic works there isn't too much of it. When I first picked up a "A history of money and banking in the united states" I couldn't put it down. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 282
Points 6,595
nandnor replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 4:42 AM

Natural rights need not be the premise of rothbard's ethics system. All it is is the only consistent political theory in regards to property, the only theory that attempts to follow the golden rule in that regard.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 299
Points 4,430
Bank Run replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 9:53 AM

I believe a well rounded view on Hayek's political and social philosophy would come from his Constitution of Liberty. It's lengthy. I believe Hayek was more a market-democrat than a market-anarchist. His view on world democracy is interesting, if taken from a free-market point of view. 

Hayek was no anarchist!

Individualism Rocks

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 133
Points 2,580

Indeed, Hayek was no anarchist, but I think certain ideas from Hayek could br congruent with market anarchist ideas. In particular his ideas about sponteaneous order as well as the inability of central planners to have all the information needed to order a society.

"Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act."-Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,205
Points 20,670
JAlanKatz replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 10:41 AM

Certainly, Hayek was no anarchist.  But does his economics support his politics, or does his economics lead more naturally to anarchism?  I suggest the latter.  Indeed, I've heard reports of conversations with Hayek where he implicitly acknowledged this, saying that he was too old to become an anarchist but might if he were a younger man.  

I saw this same gap listening to perhaps the greatest living economist - Israel Kirzner.  His economic arguments led logically to anarchy, but he always concluded with "for some reason, the market can't provide security."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 10:45 AM

JAlanKatz:

Indeed, I've heard reports of conversations with Hayek where he implicitly acknowledged this, saying that he was too old to become an anarchist but might if he were a younger man.

Where did you find that?

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 299
Points 4,430
Bank Run replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 10:48 AM

If a tag be needed I'm sticking with market-democrat.

There is no democracy that does not turn to oligarchy unless it be that of the markets democracy.

BTW, he refined "spontaneous order". Can some dude give us a refresh on the progenitor and the followers please?

Regards to y'all.

Individualism Rocks

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,205
Points 20,670
JAlanKatz replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 11:01 AM

I heard it mentioned in lectures and discussion groups at FEE.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 76
Points 1,135
Faustus replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 5:18 PM

Two things I know relivant to this.

Of the organizations existing within the Great Society one
which regularly occupies a very special position will be that which
we call government. Although it is conceivable that the spontaneous
order which we call society may exist without government, if the
minimum of rules required for the formation of such an order is
observed without an organized apparatus for their enforcement, in
most circumstances the organization which we call government
becomes indispensable in order to assure that those rules are obeyed.

Law Legislation & Liberty, vol 1 , p37

Here he clearly does not rule it out.

Also

SHENOY: This is interesting. Mises was quite clear that he believed that government was a praxeological necessity. He wrote again and again that a society needs an institution that enforces the law, and therefore you need government.

Hayek, on the other hand, says that we owe loyalty to government only and to the extent that it maintains the economic order and the laws on which we all depend. If it does not do that, we do not owe it any loyalty at all. He wrote this in "Confusion of Language in Political Thought." When the IEA published this, I pointed out to Arthur Seldon that he was promoting anarchy. This quite startled Seldon.

Hayek furthers says, in LLL, that if all government activity ceased, society would continue. So the political implications of Hayek are, in some measure, more extreme than Mises. In a late interview, he admitted that were he a younger man, he would probably be a libertarian anarchist.

from

http://mises.org/daily/1393

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS