Hey, folks, since there is yet another discussion
going on here about "what is socialism," I thought I would
pass on this tidbit to let you all know that some people
think that Hayek was one!
(Apologies to Michael who prefers to have no
mention of Hayek on his list because of Hayek's
ultra-pro-capitalist stance, :-)).
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: List Host <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:24 PM
Subject: [HAYEK-L:] LIT: R Epstein on "Hayekian Socialism" (corrected)
>>> Hayek In The Literature << -- welfare security
>
>
>"In sum, I think that the charge of Hayekian socialism
>carries with it a certain accuracy, because Hayek did
>not see the close intellectual and institutional connections
>between the government interventions that he supported
>and those which he opposed. In part, Hayek made mistakes
>because of the political circumstances of his own time.
>In order to slay the dragon of central planning, he
>thought it imperative to concede some points to the opposition.
>But a second reason is at work as well, and it brings
>us back to the philosophical origins of Hayek's position.
>The central feature of Hayekian thought was its reliance
>on ignorance. It is ignorance that make central planning
>fail. It is ignorance that gives local knowledge its
>real bit. It is ignorance that leads us to embrace a
>conception of subjective value.
>
>I value my ignorance as much as the next fellow. But truth
>be known, Hayek has gotten his central philosophical
>point only partly right. He overstates the level of
>ignorance that we have, and thus underestimates the
>dangers of government intervention driven by knowledge
>of partisan advantage. It may well be that I cannot
>draw the demand curve for my new widget; but I do know
>that there are few states of the world in which I am better
>off without my protected monopoly that with it. And
>ignorant, thought I may be, I will be prepared to invest
>a good deal in securing that legal protection if
>allowed to do so by the rules of the game. With partial
>knowledge I can put self-interest to work in the
>political sphere just as I can put it to work in the
>economic sphere. Truth be known, that is where Hayek
>goes wrong. We (collectively) may not know enough to
>manage a complex economic system from the center, but
>we (individually) do know enough to seek to rig the rule
>of the game to cut in our favor. Imperfect information
>coupled with confined self-interest offers a better
>set of behavioral assumptions about individual actors and
>social processes. Once we make those assumptions, we
>must be aware of the dangers that come from interferences
>with the contractual freedom and with legal efforts to
>maintain, from the center, minimum levels of security for
>us all. These ideals may sound fine in the abstract,
>but in practice they confer too much power on government
>bureaucrats and often invite private behaviors that ape
>many of the worst characteristics of the central planning
>that Hayek rightly deplored. The Hayekian critique
>applies to the Hayekian concession on minimum welfare
>rights. In that important sense, the charge of Hayekian
>socialism sticks."
>
>
>From Richard Epstein, "Hayekian Socialism". _Maryland Law
>Review_. Vol. 58, No. 1. 1999. pp. 271-299.
>
>
>Richard Epstein is professor of law at the U. of Chicago.
>
>
>"Hayek In The Literature" is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list.
>
>Hayek-L Archive:
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/hayek-l.html
>
>Hayek Scholars Page:
> http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html
>
>Scholars Bookstore:
> http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore/scholars_books.html
>
