The Constitution of Liberty

Rating:
Summary: Buy it before it goes out of print.
Review: A heroic 20th century restatement of Classical Liberalism, by its greatest modern proponent. Read this book and help save our civilization from the socialists.

Rating:
Summary: Why liberty and freedom trump socialism and paternalism
Review: By ANDREW CLINE RALEIGH, N.C. € F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of LIberty: University of Chicago Press, $19.95, 568 pages. Freedom is the rallying cry for everyone and every thing these days, from brain-glazed generation X- ers whining about society's social impermissiveness to authoritarian-minded socialists babbling that freedom for the masses can be achieved only by shackling the wealthy. Immediately apparent in most people1s invocations of "freedom," is that the people using that word have only the foggiest notion of what it means, much less why it is important. They confuse liberty with liberties, the provision of benefits with the freedom from coercion, and the rule of law with the rule of the majority. Alas, these democratic difficulties are not new. The authoritarian and socialist trends they caused inspired the Austrian immigrant and economics professor F.A. Hayek to pen what is now regarded as a classic distillation of liberal thought, The Constitution of Liberty, written in the late 1950s and published by Hayek's employer, the University of Chicago, in 1960. By "liberal," of course, I mean classical liberal. The term that the Whigs of 17th and 19th Century England, that Tocqueville and Madison, used to describe themselves. That the once most singular compliment a man could give to another man in describing his political thought has now been appropriated by the rationalist progressives is a misfortune that has plagued true liberals for the past 100 years now. It has plagued liberals not only in the sense that it has denied them the historical and intellectual legitimacy they so rightly deserve, but it has made the defense of those great political ideas and the defeat of their opposite nearly impossible. Hayek knew this was the case, and The Constitution of Liberty was to be the M-1 rifle of the liberal army, a versatile and effective offensive and defensive weapon useful in almost any situation. Though not even many liberal troops may realize it, The Constitution of Liberty has worked as intended. The book is at first striking in its eloquence. Most native English speakers could take lessons in lucid self-expression from this Austrian. After adjusting to the pleasant rhythms of Hayek's thought, the reader's sensibilities are struck a again, this time because of the familiarity of the words. Immediately apparent is that the many phrasings and insights that seem familiar are those that have been echoed for the past few years by the leaders of modern conservatism, or liberalism as Hayek would call it. Hayek's words can be heard emanating from the throats of Newt Gingrich, Margaret Thatcher, and even former Soviet leaders. All over the world, the ideas that are driving young conservative politicians and intellectuals to reform the modern state are ideas taken directly from Hayek. "If old truths are to retain their hold on men1s minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations," Hayek wrote in the introduction to The Constitution of Liberty. Any brief perusal of the terms and concepts used by today's new conservatives will show that Hayek achieved his goal. For these men and women are not only using the words and phrases of Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville or Locke; they are using the very words that Hayek put on paper nearly 40 years ago. In fact, Thatcher noted in her autobiography that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian reformers confided to her that they had been converted to capitalism after reading Hayek. The Constitution of Liberty begins with Hayek's explanation of why freedom is valuable. "Individual initiative" is, writes Hayek, "the necessary condition for a free evolution," and 3without that spirit, no viable civilization can grow anywhere. "[T]he case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of the inevitable ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depends." As a result, any attempt by authority to preserve current conditions or base progress on what is known to the individual expert will result in less progress. Because the progress of civilization is caused by the exchanges and experimentation that is only possible under free conditions, those conditions must be preserved. After establishing this principle of government, Hayek explains why the rule of law, rather than arbitrary control of authority, is also a necessary condition of human progress because it provides the framework necessary for individual achievement. His next section is a must read for all students of political theory because he demonstrates clearly and persuasively why opposition to the welfare state is the only principled position to take concerning that behemoth. An explanation of this section would be too complicated for a short review, but suffice it to say that Hayek's explanation is good enough make even the most die-hard welfare-state advocate reconsider his position. Hayek concludes with an essay titled, "Why I am not a conservative," that should be read by all Americans, especially reporters. In it, Hayek explains the difference between conservative and liberal in their traditional definitions. Conservative, he notes means one who preserves the status quo, and that is exactly the opposite of his intention. This book is such a complete and eloquent defense of political liberty that if the republic were ever to crumble to the point that Congress required a citizenship test for voters, The Constitution of Liberty would be the only non-founding document that need be read to spark the restoration of liberal democracy. Andrew Cline is director of publications for the John Locke Foundation, a nonprofit think tank in Raleigh, N.C.

Rating:
Summary: Socialists beware - you will not like this one, but read it
Review: Fiedrich Hayek was nearing 60 when he began writing this homage to liberty and liberals (that's the European interpretation for US readers). Throughout 400 odd pages Hayek slammed, among other things, organised labour, socialism, the abuse (politicisation) of words, the political spectrum, and the welfare state. What impressed more in this book than in some of his other works is that here Hayek actually suggested alternatives - some of which have since become economic, if not political, reality. Hayek's great talent was always to see through proposals to their underlying belief(s), and he showed his talent had not dimmed here. Even if one does not agree with anything he says, Hayek presented an awesome argument.

Rating:
Summary: Homo Sapiens, not homo economus
Review: For an economist, Hayek is a remarkably accessible author, and this is perhaps his most summarily expressive book. It's not only a treasure of Hayek's finest theses, but an excellent overview of human relations, the raison d'etre for a constitutional system, the importance of the rule of law, the radical notion of the separation of powers, and why the free market, while not flawless, remains the best economic system in the allocation, conservation, and efficiency of resources.

Hayek is often appropriated by Libertarians as one of them, but I find this claim unpersuasive. Hayek is a Republican in the sense of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Goldwater, and hardly a disciple of Libertarian reductionism to a single rule that is inherently circular and contradictory! I know Libertarianism, and Hayek is no Libertarian.

He is, however, an excellent proponent of positive and negative freedoms within a rule-based society, wherein the rule of law is not the Rule by Laws. He finds all forms of anarchy, arbitrariness, and single powers inherently bent against the truest sense of freedom. Freedom itself is not an absolute law, as in the case of being the means rather than the end, but that a world of spontaneous associations under the rule of law and contract is the most liberating of all constitutions.

Anyone who enjoys philosophy, politics, economics, sociology, and social psychology will be immediately attracted to this author and this particular book. It is copiously endnoted to substantiate numerous positions taken, but the quotes are so eloquently woven into the prose that they barely stand out as "quotes." As with other books by Hayek, this is very accessible to most college-level educated citizens, and even those who have a fervent interest in the subject matters without the paper to prove it.

This profound book is not a startling provocation, but a reasoned exposition. He nutures each subject and sentence with clarity and grace, and yet, despite his obvious erudition, he constantly engages the reader. I found that this book was one of those "life-changing" reads, not because of some extraordinary insight, but because of its ordinary insight. Concerns and matters that occupy our minds are addressed in an impeccible order, without being redundant nor tart nor extra-phenomenal. Rather, it's a kind of "eureka" one experiences when all the right and usual information is presented in the right and usual manner, but takes us one step beyond to see how this view actually comports with our most basic instincts.

Finally, the author addresses a very broad audience with a plethora of subjects, each taking on a coherent whole, while artfully crafted within a network that seems obvious upon reading, but less artfully crafted without it. This is a book you'll not only read with zeal, but return to often, no matter what your stripes.

Rating:
Summary: Hayek destroys Conservative myths from within the system
Review: Hayek shows that free markets can exist without needing to ignore social needs. Hayek provides justification for policies such as a negative income tax (for poor people to buy their food, clothing, shelter, health insurance, etc.), anti-trust legislation (to prevent monopolies from using coercion), anti-corporatism (governments should not waste money promoting private enterprise since private enterprise is capable of promoting itself), the ending of patent law (why should smart people need the government to grant them a monopoly on ideas they simply happen register first), support for activism (people's movements are free to try and change the value systems of the market), and criticism of supercilious arrogance -- whether it comes from socialist planners or pseudo-Libertarian corporatists and anarchists.

Long hailed as the champion of the right-wing and therefore ignored by the Left, Hayek will eventually prove to be the undoing of the arrogant, self-centered Right and pave the path for 21st century free-market liberalism.

Rating:
Summary: What Else Can Be Said
Review: Hayek was arguably the key intellectual force in the twentieth century. Long after Keynes is relegated to the dustbin of forgotten scribblers, Hayek will shine. This is his most important work. Read it carefully. He lays out the fundamental arguments for limited government.

Rating:
Summary: What Else Can Be Said
Review: Hayek was arguably the key intellectual force in the twentieth century. Long after Keynes is relegated to the dustbin of forgotten scribblers, Hayek will shine. This is his most important work. Read it carefully. He lays out the fundamental arguments for limited government.

Rating:
Summary: An Exposition of a Theory of Liberty
Review: Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty" is a comprehensive work of political philosophy. It sets forth, defends, and applies an important view of the nature of human liberty, government, and economics that is worth considering, at the least, and that has much to commend it. The book is carefully written and argued with extensive and substantive footnotes and with an "analytical table of contents" that is useful in following the details of the argument. The book is highly erudite. It is also passionately argued. Hayek believed he had an important message to convey.

Hayek's states his theory in part I of this book, titled "The Value of Freedom". He seeks to explore the nature of the ideal of freedom (liberty) and to explain why this ideal is valuable and worth pursuing. He finds the nature of freedom in the absence of coercion on a person by another person or group. He argues that in giving the broadest scope of action to each individual, society will benefit in ways that cannot be forseen in advance or planned and each person will be allowed to develop his or her capacities. Hayek summarizes his views near the end of his book (p. 394):

" [T]he ultimate aim of freedom is the enlargement of those capacities in which man surpasses his ancestors and to which each generation must endeavor to add its share -- its share in the growth of knowledge and the gradual advance of moral and aesthetic beliefs, where no superior must be allowed to enforce one set of views of what is right or good and where only further experience can decide what should prevail."

The book focuses on issues of economic freedom and on the value of the competitive market. Hayek has been influenced by writers such as David Hume, Edmund Burke, and John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty."

Part II of the book discusses the role of the State in preserving liberty. It develops a view of law which sees its value in promoting the exercise of individual liberty. The approach is historic. Hayek discusses with great sympathy the development of the common law and of American constitutionalism -- particularly as exemplified by James Madison.

In Part III of the book, Hayek applies his ideas about the proper role of government in allowing the exercise of individual liberty to various components of the modern welfare state. Each of the chapters is short and suggestive, rather than comprehensive. Hayek relies on technical economic analysis, and on his understanding of economic theory, as well as on his philosophical commitments, in his discussion. What is striking about Hayek's approach is his openness (sometimes to the point of possible inconsistency with his philosophical arguments). He tries in several of his chapters to show how various aspects of the modern welfare state present threats to liberty in the manner in which he has defined liberty. But he is much more favorably inclined to some aspects of these programs than are some people, and on occasion he waffles. This is the sign of a thoughtful mind, principled but undoctrinaire.

I think there is much to be learned from Hayek. He probably deserves more of a hearing than he gets. For a nonspecialist returning to a book such as this after a long time off, it is good to think of other positions which differ from Hayek's in order to consider what he has to say and to place it in context. For example, in an essay called "Liberty and Liberalism" in his "Taking Rights Seriously" (1977) the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin discusses Mill's "On Liberty" with a reference to Hayek. Dworkin argues that for Mill, liberty meant not the absence of coercion but rather personal independence. Mill was distinguishing between personal rights and economic rights, according to Dworkin. Thus Dworkin would claim that Hayek overemphasizes the value of competitiveness and lack of state economic regulation in the development of Hayek's concept of liberty.

The British political thinker Isaiah Berlin seems to suggest to me, as I read Hayek's argument, that there are other human goods in addition to liberty, as Hayek defines liberty. Further, Hayek does not establish that liberty, as he understands it, is always the ultimate human good to which others must give place. It may often be that good, but there may also be circumstances in which other goods should be given a more preeminent role when human well-being is at issue. In thinking about Hayek, it would also be useful to understand and to assess his concept of liberty by comparing and contrasting his approach to that of John Rawls in his "A Theory of Justice."

Hayek's book is important, thought-provoking and valuable. Probably no writer of a book of political philosophy can be asked for more. It deserves to be read and pondered. It has much to teach, both where it may persuade the reader and where it encourages the reader to explore competing ideas.

Rating:
Summary: That'll be One Large Order of Freedom, Hold the Spending
Review: I always have to psych myself up to read a book like this that combines philosophy, economics, political theory and economics but once I read it I was sorry I waited so long. More than once I found myself going back to the copyright page to assure myself that the book was written in 1960, not 2000.

Within the first few pages he disassociates himself from a pure libertarian position, saying he believes that the govenment has an important place in extending freedom. In an afterword he explains "Why I am not a conservative." For people that like to go beyond categorizing everything into left/right left/right like drill sargents Hayek throws a curve. He strongly believes that the feedback from free markets is the only way that society can adapt to change, which would be something labeled "conservative," but he goes into detail about the ways that governments can help make that happen.

I am not surprised that people like Noam Chomsky never seem to mention Hayek. Chomsky carefully selects the facts that help make his case and ignore the ones that are counter to it. Hayek's argments against socialism, or command economies are so good that they pretty much lay the matter to rest. I recently read a speech by Chomsky where he says that because of the unequal distribution of wealth that our "free" markets are just socialism for the rich. Hayek addresses that directly by pointing out that luxuries are luxuries because few of them are produces and only the rich can afford them, but if they are useful or liked people figure out ways to make them less expensively and they become available to everyone. That's just the way it is. How could it be possible that someone could anticipate the breakthroughs humans continue to make?

That is one little nugget from this book. I read once that Maggie Thatcher used to give away copies of this book saying "this is what we believe." For that reason alone it would be worth reading because of the influence her reforms had on not only England, but the thinging of the whole developed world.

Rating:
Summary: Astounding book - well worth reading
Review: I always have to psych myself up to read a book like this that combines philosophy, economics, political theory and economics but once I read it I was sorry I waited so long. More than once I found myself going back to the copyright page to assure myself that the book was written in 1960, not 2000.

Within the first few pages he disassociates himself from a pure libertarian position, saying he believes that the govenment has an important place in extending freedom. In an afterword he explains "Why I am not a conservative." For people that like to go beyond categorizing everything into left/right left/right like drill sargents Hayek throws a curve. He strongly believes that the feedback from free markets is the only way that society can adapt to change, which would be something labeled "conservative," but he goes into detail about the ways that governments can help make that happen.

I am not surprised that people like Noam Chomsky never seem to mention Hayek. Chomsky carefully selects the facts that help make his case and ignore the ones that are counter to it. Hayek's argments against socialism, or command economies are so good that they pretty much lay the matter to rest. I recently read a speech by Chomsky where he says that because of the unequal distribution of wealth that our "free" markets are just socialism for the rich. Hayek addresses that directly by pointing out that luxuries are luxuries because few of them are produces and only the rich can afford them, but if they are useful or liked people figure out ways to make them less expensively and they become available to everyone. That's just the way it is. How could it be possible that someone could anticipate the breakthroughs humans continue to make?

That is one little nugget from this book. I read once that Maggie Thatcher used to give away copies of this book saying "this is what we believe." For that reason alone it would be worth reading because of the influence her reforms had on not only England, but the thinging of the whole developed world.