Chapter Four, Freedom, Reason, and Tradition; The Constitution of Liberty

ISBN 0-226-32084-7, University of Chicago Press | 1960 | Friedrich A. Hayek

[missileboy]

These following paragraphs, I think, do a good job of wrapping up the essence of Hayek's thoughts from this thread:

"In fact, their argument was never antistate as such, or anarchistic, which is the logical outcome of the rationalistic laissez faire doctrine; it was an argument that accounted both for the proper functions of the state and for the limits of state action.

The difference is particularly conspicuous in the respective assumptions of the two schools concerning individual human nature. The rationalistic design theories were necessarily based on the assumption of the individual man’s propensity for rational action and his natural intelligence and goodness. The evolutionary theory, on the contrary, showed how certain institutional arrangements would induce man to use his intelligence to the best effect and how institutions could be framed so that bad people could do least harm. The antirationalist tradition is here closer to the Christian tradition of the fallibility and sinfulness of man, while the perfectionism of the rationalist is in irreconcilable conflict with it. Even such a celebrated figment as the “economic man’ was not an original part of the British evolutionary tradition. It would be only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the view of those British philosophers, man was by nature lazy and indolent, improvident and wasteful, and that it was only by the force of circumstances that he could be made to behave economically or could learn carefully to adjust his means to his ends. The homo oeconomicus was explicitly introduced, with much else that belongs in the rationalist rather than the evolutionary tradition, only by the younger Mill.

5. The greatest difference between the two views, however, is in their respective ideas about the role of traditions and the value of all the other product of unconscious growth proceeding throughout the ages. It would hardly be unjust to say that the rationalistic approach is here opposed to almost all that is the distinct product of liberty and that gives liberty its value. Those who believe that all useful institutions are deliberate contrivances and who cannot conceive of anything serving a human purpose that has not been consciously designed are almost of necessity enemies of freedom. For them freedom means chaos.

To the empiricist evolutionary tradition, on the other hand, the value of freedom consists mainly in the opportunity that it provides for the growth of the undesigned, and the beneficial functioning of a free society rests largely on the existence of such freely grown institutions. There probably never has existed a genuine belief in freedom, and there certainly has been no successful attempt to operate a free society, without a genuine reverence for grown institutions, for customs and habits and “all those securities of liberty which arise from regulation of long prescription and ancient ways.” Paradoxial as it may appear, it is probably true that a successful free society will always in a large measure be a tradition-bound society."

My interpretation on this, in a little more detail, is this:

Hayek is describing the only two systems of government, what I would call the model of internal control and external control, or the model of self-government vs. statism. The common strawman that is advanced that libertarianism = anarchy is exactly that - a strawman. Libertarians are not anti-government; if anything, they are pro-government in that they realize the legitimate role of the State and therefore acknowledge the state has a definite role to play in advancing freedom (though this libertarian is always for looking for ways to minimize the reliance on the state, maybe in ways the founders didn't think possible back in 1787, but that is another thread). Libertarians are pro-Constitutional government, and just because they don't support the transformational Marxist government we have today does not mean we are anarchists, nor does it make us "anti-government".

Second, it is most definitely true that "a successful free society will always in a large measure be a tradition-bound society". For instance, the focus on the rights of the individual and specifically, property rights, are a fundamental tradition of western thought. These same thoughts are embodied in our Bill of Rights. If you look closely at the first ten amendments, you'll see striking similarity to the Ten Commandments. This is no coincidence - our government was founded on the concept of "natural rights" which originated with God, not from any man, to be guaranteed (not granted) by government.

Being that natural rights are a fundamental axiom of libertarianism, I ask myself, as a Christian libertarian, how atheist libertarians view this. Objectivists are essentially atheists, though, and come to similar conclusions through "the power of reason" (if I understand correctly) instead of natural rights.

But does this reliance on established traditions, closely based on judeo-christianity, necessarily imply conservatism? That, to me, depends on what you're trying to conserve - hence my distinction between conservatives and neoconservatives. That is to say, I don't like to use the words "conservative" and "liberal" very much because the meanings change over time. Thomas Jefferson was a "liberal". If conservatives are trying to conserve the functions of basic constitutional government as it was stated back in 1787, then I am a conservative, though back in those days I would have been called a liberal. If conservatives are trying to cling to the eroded position of freedom, that 70 years ago was part of the platform of the Socialist Party of America (i.e. Social Security, Public Education, and other welfare state jewels which most all of America has come to accept as political reality), then I am no conservative, and libertarians and "conservatives" find themselves at odds. It's all in defining the label.

I think it also needs saying that admitting that our society is founded on judeo-christian thought does not mean that government is to be the tool to force morality on others (apart from this idea of natural law, that is which is morality, from the Ten Commandments) - we may disagree here. It is not that I believe in moral relativism; quite the opposite is true. It is the overall effect that I am looking at.

Take the War on Drugs, for example. Sure, many libertarians sound like "pro baby killers" when they say "my body is my body and I can do what I want" (while I do not think this argument can be correctly used in the abortion issue). While I believe this idea holds true for drugs and hence is a valid point, the main reason I believe drugs should be legal, while I believe them to be morally reprehensible, has to do with my belief in free will.

When God became man and went to the Jews, whose society was deliberately frought with all kinds of laws governing every aspect of their daily lives (to show that works and man's laws cannot possibly serve for Man to get to God on his own), Christ didn't seek to save the Jews by passing more laws or making more aspects of life "illegal". In fact, Christ stated that he came to fulfill the law and, going against the politics of the times, spent time openly in the company of sinners. He stressed personal responsibility through controlling your thoughts, focusing on what is in your heart as opposed to what your external acts suggested to others, and above all, love and devotion to God in your heart, expressing itself through external works, but works not being a part of the equation for salvation.

I believe He felt government and laws, when it came to personal morality, were inadequate at ultimately fulfilling His will. If He believed in force and coercion, he would not have given us free will to begin with. The law simply caused humans to want to push the limits, not to actually do everything they could to live like Christ.

I think we see the futility of regulating personal morality through external coercion in the Drug War. Government has proven to be a poor substitute for families and cultural bonds that, years ago, largely controlled the "drug problem" we have today. This was mainly accomplished by building stronger individuals from the inside, on the model of internal control, as opposed to superficial, external control, which is largely done for show anyhow, no different than the religious leaders of Jesus' day who prayed out in the open to impress other, instead of trying to relate to God.

External control and government have sought to replace the individual's rational thought, and as a result, the individual has grown weaker, less capable of self-control, becoming more dependent on the State, while the problem worsens. And in the meantime, all the abuses associated with the Drug War, such as property raids with no evidence, false warrants, asset forfeiture, cash seizure and banks reporting deposits over XX amount etc. all go unnoticed and are deemed to be "necessary to preserve our culture and to protect our children". I do not leave that job to government. Not only is it incapable of doing this - it actually erodes the culture of personal responsibility.

Yes, freedom means chaos to anarchists and also to those who hope to accomplish "freedom" through government force. Read the "Rage Against the Machine" website, and you'll see that they define "freedom" as sticking up for "workers' rights" by using force to get "living wages", or as tearing down tall buildings that scar mother nature's skyline, home to "the powerful establishment", which hoardes a finite amount of resources and robs "us" of "our" land and "opportunity", assets belonging to "all of us". One expects them to quote Marx directly and speak of the State "withering away" once "we" are all "liberated". Indeed, this "us" vs. "them" collectivism is the antithesis of freedom. They seek only to tear down, and have no plans of constructing anything on which to build stability.

I sincerely hope this came across as somewhat coherent. Thanks again for the post. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I've written. Perhaps you can give me another point of view to consider.

[KC Burke]

That was a great post. I appreciate your sincerity and directness. I’m almost afraid to comment lest I seem argumentative or unappreciative of your contriburtion.

But, this is FR—the land of great debate and controversy—LOL.

First of all, your post points out that Principles, not simple formulas are the bedrock of true political integrity. If conservatives in general could agree on that their would still be a lot of common ground. I don’t know if you read the Nisbet article that I linked early in the thread, but he goes a long way in pointing out the common ground while not ignoring the differences.

Different views of Rights are indeed much of the difference. I found a wonderful explanation in both Thomas Sowell and in Burke. It deals somewhat in what Kirk called the Principle of Prescription. Prescription deals with things like property that are held, not from logic, metaphysical rights arguements or even law, but held from time and honor. The point that Sowell makes in A Conflict of Visions is that those holding with with Constrained view of mankind (Hayek's believers in the Whigish English classical liberalism) believe in Rights that they actually hold, or can hold. He contrasts that with the Unconstrained view holders who believe in rationalist logical constructs that can be debated away, argued away, prioritized away and utilitarian measured and put one right against another.

Burke points out that the Glorius Revolution insured Rights as Englishmen that they already held, not rights that they were due and which then could be legislated or argued away.

Like yourself, Hayek doesn't like the term liberal, or conservative. He also finds Libertarian somewhat lacking. He settles for "Old Whig" saying it is the only thing accurate enough.

I see libertarians who throw away the vagueries of Principles and want the cold logic of "one simple single formula" and while there are some in their rank I respect, and even enjoy, that system is not one I can admire. It sets them on the Rationalist Totalitarian line that Hayek condemns so heartedly. He even alludes to that exact simplistic failure directly when he brushes aside "the younger Mill"

I, quite frankly, don't feel that conservative implies that conservatives are largely defined as wanting to "conserve" anything as the central part of their thinking. The root was used to imply that they weren't ready to abandon civilized society and join the Jocobins. That's the total indictment.

Conservatives, in this day and age, have a radical agenda. And the root of radical is "root" as I recall.

[KC Burke]

That was a great post. I appreciate your sincerity and directness. I’m almost afraid to comment lest I seem argumentative or unappreciative of your contriburtion.

But, this is FR—the land of great debate and controversy—LOL.

First of all, your post points out that Principles, not simple formulas are the bedrock of true political integrity. If conservatives in general could agree on that their would still be a lot of common ground. I don’t know if you read the Nisbet article that I linked early in the thread, but he goes a long way in pointing out the common ground while not ignoring the differences.

Different views of Rights are indeed much of the difference. I found a wonderful explanation in both Thomas Sowell and in Burke. It deals somewhat in what Kirk called the Principle of Prescription. Prescription deals with things like property that are held, not from logic, metaphysical rights arguements or even law, but held from time and honor. The point that Sowell makes in A Conflict of Visions is that those holding with with Constrained view of mankind (Hayek's believers in the Whigish English classical liberalism) believe in Rights that they actually hold, or can hold. He contrasts that with the Unconstrained view holders who believe in rationalist logical constructs that can be debated away, argued away, prioritized away and utilitarian measured and put one right against another.

Burke points out that the Glorius Revolution insured Rights as Englishmen that they already held, not rights that they were due and which then could be legislated or argued away.

Like yourself, Hayek doesn't like the term liberal, or conservative. He also finds Libertarian somewhat lacking. He settles for "Old Whig" saying it is the only thing accurate enough.

I see libertarians who throw away the vagueries of Principles and want the cold logic of "one simple single formula" and while there are some in their rank I respect, and even enjoy, that system is not one I can admire. It sets them on the Rationalist Totalitarian line that Hayek condemns so heartedly. He even alludes to that exact simplistic failure directly when he brushes aside "the younger Mill"

I, quite frankly, don't feel that conservative implies that conservatives are largely defined as wanting to "conserve" anything as the central part of their thinking. The root was used to imply that they weren't ready to abandon civilized society and join the Jocobins. That's the total indictment.

Conservatives, in this day and age, have a radical agenda. And the root of radical is "root" as I recall.

[KC Burke]

Hummm...didn't show up....tried again...didn't show up...hours later they are both there. Last night was strange.

[tpaine]

You write:

That was a great post. I appreciate your sincerity and directness. I'm almost afraid to comment lest I seem argumentative or unappreciative of your contriburtion. - But, --

You then go on to chatter at length about points not at issue.
Finally, you address libertarianism, in response, I assume, to this part of the post you so 'appreciated':

-------------------------

"Hayek is describing the only two systems of government, what I would call the model of internal control and external control, or the model of self-government vs. statism. The common strawman that is advanced that libertarianism = anarchy is exactly that - a strawman. Libertarians are not anti-government; if anything, they are pro-government in that they realize the legitimate role of the State and therefore acknowledge the state has a definite role to play in advancing freedom ---- Libertarians are pro-Constitutional government, ---"

I see libertarians who throw away the vagueries of Principles and want the cold logic of "one simple single formula" and while there are some in their rank I respect, and even enjoy, that system is not one I can admire. It sets them on the Rationalist Totalitarian line that Hayek condemns so heartedly.

Your reply above has little or no real response to the posted quote. -- It's an incredible, - & even bizarre comment.
-- Are you posting these threads just to regale us with your rather odd views about so-called 'totalitarian libertarians', or what?

[tpaine]

Whoops, I forgot to flag you in my last post.

Your summary of Hayak was very well done. Opened my eyes to new views.
- Thanks.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

***snore***

More mental self-abuse from the FR utopian contingent, which is more interested in living pursuant to the theories of the dead than in the world of the living.

[tpaine]

More self-abuse from the FR statist contingent, which is more interested in living pursuant to the theories of dead totalitarian rule than in the world of living in a free republic.

67 posted by one of those who unilaterally beat their swords into plowshares, only to wind up plowing for those who don't. They should go fishing, instead.

[KC Burke]

-- Are you posting these threads just to regale us with your rather odd views about so-called 'totalitarian libertarians', or what?

Yes.

[tpaine]

Thank you.
Occasional rationality becomes you.

[tpaine]

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."
 

[tpaine]

Book review of "Andrew Gamble,

Hayek: The Iron Cage of Liberty"
Address:http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/gamble.html

[missileboy]

Thanks. I've seen your posts on FR and get a lot out of them myself.

[missileboy]

Your comments are appreciated.

tpaine kind of stole my thunder - I was going to inquire about that same line in your post, though I probably wouldn't have asked you if you were trying to "regale" us libertarians...LOL. What in my post does imply a simple formula that turns you off to libertarianism in general? How do you see the libertarians as throwing away the vagueries of principles in favor of a one-size-fits-all unworkable system?

From what you've said, esp. your comment about adherence to principles being the bedrock of true political integrity, I suspect you and I have a lot more in common than I would have with the majority of "conservative" posters here on FR (and our unhappy friend Chancellor is a prime example), though we may at times disagree on how we extrapolate to arrive at conclusions from those principles.

[KC Burke]

Nothing in your post implies that you are a libertarian limited by an ideological adherence to a simple formula to settle all issues of politcal thought -- an ideologue. Hence my compliment.

In fact, ol' tpaine and I sometimes find ourselves on the same side of issues, dispite general broad disagreement, because, equally, he is not a knee-jerk, ideologue.

You can see this by his ability to cite and revere constitutional principles of settled political compromise at the founding even when they differ from ideological cant of other libertarians.

Included in your ranks are many libertarians I find common cause with, hence my comments at post #1.

That being said, I also have an appreciation for the sincerity and solid honesty of some libertarians that I would place in the ranks of the rank-Ideological. Appreciation can bridge outright disagreement with political methods.

Over the years I have been involved with FR, the ranks of libertarians here are split equally between those casts.

I imagine that this division isn't clear without a solid understanding of my thoughts on Ideology in general which can be found in the first thread I ever posted: The Errors of Ideology which can be found on my profile page. The occasion for that thread was in the 98-99 Primary season and doesn't apply to this issue, but the issues of Ideology do. I have regaled many with that definition numerous times so I won't repost it.

Likewise, where the distinctions seem clear from my side, I'm sure they aren't as clear from within the libertarian ranks. I make my point because for the most part I am speaking to my conservative brethern and those on the libertarian side who get too wrapped up in J. S. Mill type rationality. I have hopes that some on my side of the spectrum will develope a more general appreciation of those who hold "libertarian principles" and reserve their diatribes for the pure ideologues that they can find no common cause with. I also have hopes that libertarians may find issues within their thought that are limiting and see that Hayek and others they respect have a broad set of principles and not a simple formula.

It is certainly an "odd view" as tpaine points out. It is more common for some on the board that object to libertaian ideology to disparage the tradition altogether. Likewise, it is much more the normal path for some libertarians to steadfastly deride all "traditional conservative" thought or posters as compromisers and RINOs willing to accept the views of the left in small increments. While I am not saying those two more common stances aren't sincere, or even thought out, I don't feel that they are correct.

In making this point, I have cited Chapter Four for a couple of years and your request some days back prompted me to make my point by typing the first half in.

Now, tpaine will tell you I could have made the points I just made in two sentences, without all the laborious detail, but that isn't how I seem to best express myself.

[KC Burke]

Your post at #71 is an outstanding analysis and makes some points that all can agree with in a very clear way!

(And, I won't even call it wordy, LOL)

[independentmind]

I may go post it among the atheists for whom wry (and bitter) irony has supplanted all notion of the paradoxical.

I saw you make this comment a few weeks ago and it made me think of something I read recently. As you may have guessed, I appreciate irony, as long as it's not fueled by cynicism. Anyway, here's the passage. Let's see if anyone can guess its author.

..the postmodernist irony is merely an attempt to recapturre an ingredient in all true philosophy--in all philosophy that recognizes that we are both subject and object, and that between these two lies an impassable barrier through which at every moment we must nevertheless pass.

[KC Burke]

I'll add here a good Link on Oakeshott's views on Rationalism and where it has led.

[KC Burke]

misspelled your screen name in trying to ping you to number 78...it is an interesting read, but too lengthy to post

[betty boop]

...its benefit cannot be appreciated until it is already old.

Yes, KC. And when it is "old," then the "rising generation" will have (on the "liberal" view) sufficient reason to despise the benefit, transmitted to them from the venerable human past; and to exchange its own particular fancy into the place of the yet "older" conception of order, personal and public.

In the propagation of this particular predilection of human thought, the demonstrably nefarious, standard Left-Progressive educational and communicational tactics seem to be critically inhospitable to human welfare over time; yet at the same time, such seem largely to have been given a "free pass" by the American public.

IMHO, the American public really needs to understand how this particular process of (abstract) thought undermines personal authority and liberty -- assuming the American public still cares about such things, which were the reasons undergirding our national founding in the first place.

If this sounds "judgmental" or harsh," please just chalk it up the the fact that I had a bad day, today. May God grant a better one tomorrow.