Replies

Another interesting view of why Hayek 'tempered' his words on some aspects of libertarianism:

"The libertarian (or classical-liberal) notion of "liberty" means principally freedom of property, consent and contract. The substance of "freedom of property, consent, and contract" lies in policy positions against restrictions on such freedom, positions publicized today by the Cato Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs.
From the positions on the concrete policy issues, one finds a true cogency in the meaning of "liberty" -- a cogency, that is, in the expression "property, consent, and contract."
Hayek chose, however, not to focus on concrete policy issues. Although the third part of The Constitution of Liberty treats labor law, Social Security, taxation, housing, agriculture, and education -- and argues for policy reform in the libertarian direction -- Hayek never gave his discussion of liberty a clear and firm rooting in the policy issues.

I believe that Hayek steered away from specific policy issues, focusing instead on broad policy ideas and the larger issue of socialism, because he wanted to engage his intellectual opponents. Hayek -- who was the leading protégée of Ludwig von Mises and who spoke (in a televised interview) of having been "cured" by Mises -- knew that his insights lead toward a radical philosophy of limited government, a philosophy which, as Gamble notes, Hayek was virtually alone in propounding.

But Hayek wanted not to make this tendency too plain. To do so would be to ask his opponents to dive forthwith into what is now counted as a variety of libertarianism.

For them, such a dive is an intellectual tailspin, and naturally rejected out of hand. Had Hayek presented himself, as Milton Friedman does, as utterly decided in favor of the outright abolition of occupational licensing, the FDA, and the post office, he would have lost any chance of ingratiating himself with many potential listeners."

the outright abolition of occupational licensing, the FDA, and the post office

Heck, I only count myself a fraction libertarian, and I support this!

I have no doubt Hayek hid a libertarian streak. But from this post, I gather that it was a rational libertarianism rather than the extreme doctrinaire version that is so prevalent these days. In my opinion, Hayek seemed to think that the tradition of small government should be preserved, not that a philosophy needed to be created to argue for small government. That approach derives from the fact that both Hayek's and von Mises' models were primarily economic, not social or philosophical. There is little to recommend a dominant role for government in economic management, and Hayek's writings tend to reflect that.