Customer Reviews

The constitution of liberty

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

This is a great rationalist defense of the ideas which the founders of the United States knew instinctively, or by historical experience. All people don't accomplish the same things equally, or in the same amount of time? No big deal. Treating them equally before the law is more important, especially for those who don't want to be forced into an equal outcome in life. The unique dimension to these ideas which Hayek contributes is his Misesian economic outlook, which he ties into the imperative for liberty, defined as both equality before the law, and strict limits on the reach of law.

I continue to marvel (when not non-marveling) how "government" must act through laws in order to do anything. Each fresh new blow-dried representative or senator could benefit from a few weeks off to absorb this book, to get a better idea of what it is they are trying to build, or even to get an honest standard by which to measure their infringements on liberty and their distortions of limited government.

Hayek is quite willing to teach them, and us, but there is a special place in his heart for socialists, which makes him somewhat Christlike, as he welcomes the sinners of socialism into his company, while other free-market types just jeer from afar or throw stones. Hayek says no, let's think this through. What will happen to the price system and the market if the government's share of the economy reaches a tipping point--as he saw it do in Italy and Germany during his lifetime. How will it affect the legislative function if administrative arms of the executive are the final authors of so many rules, particularly pricing and production-related? This is the message he sought to articulate, in the middle of FDR's socialist experimenting.

Hayek held a lantern for us, like the Forbes magazine illustration in an article commemorating him about 15 years ago. There he stands still. In his arms he holds this book, along with The Road to Serfdom. Read these before tackling his other works.

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.

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.

There is an old saying "If you are not a socialist at 20 you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative at 40 you don't have a brain".

Many people who are young at heart feel that the dreadful alternative to left-liberalism is some kind of cynical, crusty conservatism. Some conservatives reinforce that impression by their rigid and authoritarian views. The best part of this book is the essay at the end titled "Why I am not a conservative" because it dissolves that confusion of thought.

Differences within the "non-left" arise especially in two areas: (a) the use of state power to enforce moral principles and (b) the domain of economic policy. In each case the nub of the issue is the extent of state intervention that is appropriate.

Some economic liberals may need to be reminded that we do not live by bread and technology alone. Our lives gain meaning and purpose from the myths, moral values and traditions which constitute our non-material heritage. Economic liberals may sometimes appear to have little interest in these spiritual and cultural matters but this is not entirely true and the impression arises because they seldom see these things as part of the agenda of state policy. Here a basic principle is at stake because they do not aim to impose religious or cultural values, instead they wish to sustain "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends", as Hayek put it.

Turning to economic policy we find much conservative apprehension about the push for wholesale deregulation and privatisation. Socialists and many conservatives share a distrust of capitalism due to their failure to appreciate the function of markets and the nature of competition in the marketplace.

Over the last century or two, liberals of the classical (non-socialist) variety were forced into ad hoc alliances with conservatives to resist the socialist thrust of the Left. Consequently market liberalism became identified as a reactionary movement and hence the importance of this essay as a corrective to that view. Due to the compromises required for the liberal/conservative alliance in practical politics, the spirit of classical liberalism has languished to the point of death because no major political party in the Western world sustained it in a pure form.

The Rule of Law is a principle that conservatives might be expected to hold dear. But Hayek drew attention to "the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty". Some conservatives tend to share with socialists a willingness to recruit the power of the state to coerce others where the liberal would allow freedom of choice. Conscription for military service is a case in point.

In this book Hayek addresses a wide range of social and political issues to provide alternatives to traditional socialist and conservative views. But the real sting is in the tail, in the essay which relaxes the crippling requirement for young people to go through a phase of socialism to demonstrate that they have a heart.

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.

Hayek undertook a monumental task when he set out to write the The Constitution of Liberty. Hayek aimed at finding the proper limits between public and private life. How far should the authority of the state extend? What areas of life should be beyond the reach of the government? Hayek is stating his version of the general principles of classical liberalism, based on utilitarian ethics. Since his arguments are utilitarian, this book has economic overtones.

Hayek's purpose in restating the principles of liberal society is to defend these principles against the opposing intellectual movement of collectivism. Western Civilization succeeded largely because of its individualism. Collectivism is undermining the basis of modern civilization in the West. Individualism is important because we each lack the knowledge needed to rationally direct the affairs of others. Some people believe that they can plan out society because they are `experts' or because they are educated. Hayek saw that nobody can posses the knowledge needed to design a rational order for society. As Hayek put it, "it is largely because civilization enables us constantly to profit from knowledge which we individually do not posses that men can pursue their individual ends more successfully than they could alone".

In writing this book, Hayek shifted his attention away from full-blown socialism and towards the modern welfare state. Hayek seems to have felt that the case for socialism had been sufficiently weakened so as to allow him to critique welfare states. Hayek accepted some types of government intervention that libertarians typically oppose. Rather than opposing each program point by point, Hayek sought out some `lynchpin issues' that would limit state growth. Hayek argued strenuously against state control of the money supply, and suggested ways of limiting taxation. Hayek's libertarian critics typically cringe at some of his concessions, but we would all be in a much better position now if his constitution had been adopted.

The Constitution of Liberty is more than well reasoned, it is subtle and profound. This book reveals Hayek's deep understanding of economics, politics, and history. Reading the COL is no small undertaking, but it is a highly useful undertaking for any serious student of political economy.

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.

The Constitution of Liberty is "a comprehensive restatement of the basic principles of a philosophy of freedom" (p. 3). It is often considered the magnum opus of Hayek's political writings, even if The Road to Serfdom is perhaps better known.

The Constitution of Liberty has three parts. In the first part Hayek defines the concept of liberty, namely as "absence of coercion" (§1.1), with coercion occuring "when one man's actions are made to serve another man's will, not for his own but for the other's purpose" (p. 133). The only kind of coercion acceptable is that by the state that is intended to prevent more severe coercion (including fraud and deception) between individuals (p. 144). Government should not pursue policies intended to achieve greater material equality, since involuntary redistribution involves coercion of some, and is thus in violation of liberty.

In the second part, Hayek explores some of the characteristics of the legal system of a country where freedom reigns: people must be ruled not by the whims of other people, whether an autocratic ruler or a democratic majority, but by laws that apply equally to everyone. In part three Hayek explores some of the applications of his theory (taxation, Social Security, central banking, education, labor unions, etc).

Part 1 is brilliant and timeless-Hayek at his absolute best. Part 3 is somewhat dated, but here and there some gems of persuasion can definitely be found, particularly in the chapters on social security and taxation.

This book is brave and timeless. I picked up this book foolishly thinking I would be reading an analysis of the US Constitution. What I recieved was an education in the importance of liberty as the highest virtue.