Hayek was big defender of the common law, meaning judge made law decided on a case by basis, building on prior cases through precedent, developing over generations, as opposed to code law (e.g., the Napoleonic Code), meaning the legislative branch creating statutory law intended to address in absract all circumstances. Hayek would argue that the common law is preferable, because law is created in a dispersed manner from below (i.e., law is created based upon specific circumstance at almost an invididualized level with ability to evolve over time), as opposed in a centralized manner from above (i.e., law is created based upon abstraction and then with little ability to evolve because of codification). So Hayek would say the common law is an example of spontaneous order because there is no centrailized authority directing it (spontaneous), but it is quite efficient (orderly).
David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> From: Jim Devine <[email protected]> Sent: 5/13/2011 8:35AM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Hayek vs. Schumpeter >> >> BTW2, can someone explain how there can be a "spontaneous order" in a >> >> market without the state using coercion to enforce (some) property >> >> rights? >> >> Doug: >> > Who thinks otherwise? Even diehard libertarians believe that the state has >> > to enforce >> contracts and property rights. >> >> Of course, but then how is it "spontaneous"? >> -- >> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own >> way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >>
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
