Hi all,
I'm a far right Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist.
On another forum I recently had bit of a debate about a quote taken out of Hayek's Road To Serfdom, Ch 9, second page of the chapter - middle of the page:
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."
This quote is broadly used across the internet to proclaim that Hayek is an advocate for welfare or gov't assistance, and used by Liberals or NeoCons to support the concept of the welfare state. At first I did not think Hayek was advocating a welfare system. Here was my response. But, after writing my rebuttal I reread the chapter section. Now I think maybe Hayek is advocating gov't welfare. Welfare of his claimed "first level" or limited security type.
I am trying to figure out what Hayek supported with respect to his writing a particular passage. What do you guys think he meant? Do you think that universal limited welfare of the type Hayek is apparently advocating actually increases one's freedom from harsh economic conditions, and thus provides liberty? But of course, those that produce and support themselves do not take avail of such welfare, therefore such welfare does not provide them anything.
Hayek was not an anarcho-capitalist, and he is known for being the most moderate of "great" Austrian economists, and so it's really not surprising. Road to Serfdom, in any case, is known for not going "far enough", and for making concesions that few anarcho-capitalists would agree with. Both Mises and Hayek believed (at least publically) that the market could not provide certain, necessary services.
Bearing, I don't profess to be an expert on Hayek. That said, I don't think whoever posted that quotation really knows Hayek's thought and since Hayek was a very subtle and nuanced thinker, out of context quotations by him are wont to be misunderstood. Before I begin on the more important issue let me point something out,
F.A. Hayek:Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences
F.A. Hayek:neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance
These conditions restrict the scope of any system of social insurance quite significantly as far as I can tell. The point for Hayek is that these are issues that genuinely can't be taken into account (presumably due to Kirzerian "radical ignorance") and therefore don't create any perverse incentives (of course, I'm not sure how strictly true this is, Kirzner speaks of some sort of entrepreneurial awareness, which might be mitigated against by such policies). To give a quite and simply example, Hayek isn't saying we should help the guy who smoked 40 packs of cigarettes a day and washed down his two daily hamburgers with a bottle of vodka and later developed some sort of illness. Rather, my reading says Hayek is talking about helping the guy whose house was bombed during a military training drill gone wrong.
More important is context. I think if you want to understand Hayek's thought here you need to read his "Individualism: True and False" and less importantly "Freedom, Reason and Tradition". Hayek conceives of government differently from Rothbard et al, whereas the latter group sees government as something created by man for whatever purpose, Hayek regards it as something that society has developed (or, since he'd likely object to such language, something that has spontaneously evolved) to deal with certain things that the market (construed narrowly) cannot. And I suppose that welfare (along with, say, law) would be one of these.
So when Hayek speaks in this passage of "communal action" what I take him to mean is action taken (voluntarily) by the community through the means of government to help the poor.
I think it's important to point out that Hayek was a very important defender of individual rights and liberty. People here are all too keen to distance themselves from him because of certain "heresies" or whatever. And I think it's a shame.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan