Friedrich A. von Hayek

Law, Legislation and Liberty (Volume 3). The Political Order of a Free People

Friedrich August von Hayek, a winner of the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Science1 and a Professor Emeritus of the University of Chicago, concludes with this book a three-volume treatise entitled Law, Legislation and Liberty. This particular volume, The Political Order of a Free People,2 is an opaque, obscure, and occasionally contradictory work; it is an uncompromising rejection of the political structure of every modern democratic society. In his two previous volumes,3 Hayek argued that theorists and policymakers, by regulating the economic order to bring about social justice, create grave threats to individual liberty. With this volume, he directs our attention beyond the activities of the policymakers to the political structure of the systems in which they operate. Hayek considers the organization of modern democracies destructive not only of individual liberty, but of democracy itself, and acccordingly presents his alternative Political Order of a Free People. Before examining the path of Hayeks analysis, it may be helpful to point out the ideological basis of his criticisms. Hayek has established himself as an unyielding advocate of the free-market economy; he appears to distrust government in an almost passionate manner. He seems to tolerate virtually no governmental restrictions on the economic freedom of individuals, and thus deplores any and all attempts to redistribute wealth or income by legislation.

Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice

Incisive, straightforward, and eloquent, this third and concluding volume of F. A. Hayeks comprehensive assessment of the basic political principles which order and sustain free societies contains the clearest and most uncompromising exposition of the political philosophy of one of the worlds foremost economists.

The Non Sequitur of the "Dependence Effect"

For well over a hundred years the critics of the free enterprise system have resorted to the argument that if production were only organized rationally, there would be no economic problem. Rather than face the problem, which scarcity creates; socialist reformers have tended to deny that scarcity existed. Ever since the Saint-Simonians their contention has been that the problem of production has been solved and only the problem of distribution remains. However absurd this contention must appear to us with respect to the time when it was first advanced. it still has some persuasive power when repeated with reference to the present.

The constitution of liberty : the definitive edition

Introduction Part 1: The Value of Freedom 1. Liberty and Liberties 2. The Creative Powers of a Free Civilization 3. The Common Sense of Progress 4. Freedom, Reason, and Tradition 5. Responsibility and Freedom 6. Equality, Value, and Merit 7. Majority Rule 8. Employment and Independence Part 2: Freedom and the Law 9. Coercion and the State 10. Law, Commands, and Order 11. The Origins of the Rule of Law 12. The American Contribution: Constitutionalism 13. Liberalism and Administration: The Rechtsstaat 14. The Safeguards of Individual Liberty 15. Economic Policy and the Rule of Law 16. The Decline of the Law Part 3: Freedom in the Welfare State 17. The Decline of Socialism and the Rise of the Welfare State 18. Labor Unions and Employment 19. Social Security 20. Taxation and Redistribution 21. The Monetary Framework 22. Housing and Town Planning 23. Agriculture and Natural Resources 24. Education and Research

Economic Freedom and Representative Government

Thirty years ago I wrote a book1 which, in a manner which many regarded as unduly alarmist, described the dangers that the then visible collectivist tendencies created for personal freedom. I am glad that these fears so far have not materialised, but I do not think this has proved me wrong. In the first instance I did not, as many misunderstood me, contend that if government interfered at all with economic affairs it was bound to go the whole way to a totalitarian system. I was trying to argue rather what in more homely terms is expressed by saying ‘if you don’t mend your principles you will go to the devil’.

On Being an Economist

It is reported of the greatest economist whom I have personally known that he used to say that if he had seven sons they should all study economics. If this was meant to suggest the magnitude of the task economists have to solve, this heroic resolution cannot be highly enough commended. If it was meant to suggest that the study of economics is a sure path to personal happiness, I am afraid I have no such cheerful message for you. And it may be that Carl Menger himself later changed his views: when at last, at the age of sixty-two, he produced one son, this son did not become an economist, though the father lived to see him become a promising mathematician.

The earlier letters of John Stuart Mill 1812-1848

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill took thirty years to complete and is acknowledged as the definitive edition of J.S. Mill and as one of the finest works editions ever completed. Mills contributions to philosophy, economics, and history, and in the roles of scholar, politician and journalist can hardly be overstated and this edition remains the only reliable version of the full range of Mills writings. Each volume contains extensive notes, a new introduction and an index. Many of the volumes have been unavailable for some time, but the Works are now again available, both as a complete set and as individual volumes.

What is ‘Social’ — What does it mean?

Except in the fields of philology and logic, there are probably few cases in which one would be justified in devoting a whole article to the meaning of one single word. Sometimes, however, a little word like this not only throws light upon the process of the evolution of ideas and the story of human error, but often continues to exercise an irrational power, which becomes apparent only when, by analysis, we arrive at the true meaning of it. I doubt whether there exists a better example of the little appreciated influence exercised by a single word than that afforded by the role which the little word ‘social’ has played for a hundred years in the whole sphere of political problems — and is still playing. We are so familiar with it, we accept it so much as a matter of course, that we are hardly conscious of any problem regarding its meaning. We have accepted it for so long as the natural exemplification of good behaviour and sincere thinking, that it seems almost sacrilege even to ask what this word, which so many men regard as the guiding star of their lives, really means.

El uso del conocimiento en la sociedad

La corriente economica principal adolece de dos graves errores: transplanta los metodos de las ciencias puras en la que se puede obtener y controlar toda la informacion pertinente al estudio de los fenomenos sociales; reduce el analisis economico al formalismo matematico de la logica pura de la eleccion. Pero cuando se reconoce que el conocimiento esta disperso entre los diversos miembros de la sociedad y que cada persona posee fragmentos de conocimiento a los que solo ella tiene acceso en razon de sus circunstancias especificas de tiempo y lugar, el problema economico esencial es el de la coordinacion y utilizacion de los saberes individuales, es decir, de la transmision y uso de los conocimientos relevantes para tomar las decisiones economicas, que nunca estan al alcance de un individuo o de una autoridad central.

A Self-Generating Order for Society

It is very difficult to know where to begin when one would wish to comment on almost every preceding speaker. I am particularly tempted to make some remarks on the problem of the differences or similarities of the methods of the exact sciences and the social sciences which have been raised several times, and their implications for policy. But I will refrain from attacking even this problem systematically, although it has been one of my main concerns for years, and try to develop what seems to me the central point of our concern, the point which I would hardly have dared to raise if Jim Douglas had not succeeded in stating briefly, in three minutes, what I thought could not be stated in three hours. But I will make my starting point what he said, and if you think at first that what I say has no direct relevance to what has been said before, I hope you will later see that it is connected with most of the problems so far discussed.