« Kate Manne, Himpathy, and some Adam Smith, Part 1. | Main | Hayek, Colonialism, Kantian Perpetual Peace, and a bit of Foucault »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Régis Servant

I completely concur with you about this concealed conflict argument in Hayek’s thinking, which is not the most well-known – and thank you, and Stefan Kolev 🙂, for Friedman’s quote, in which the argument is well summarized indeed.
I remember that Hayek indeed talked about Carl Schmitt in Law, Legislation and Liberty’s vol. 2, on the notion of the “friend-enemy relation”.

You might also be interested to know that Buchanan often quoted Knight, saying:
“As Professor Frank Knight has suggested, much of the support for the market form of organization arises from the simple fact that it is the only form of organization upon which men seem able to agree”.
“Well, you remember our old friend Frank Knight used to say that one of the supports for the market is that people couldn’t agree on anything else, in terms of distribution”.
(But my knowledge of Knight’s writings is far too scant. Where and what he said exactly remains to be clarified.)

Please, allow me to recommend in addition four articles to you and the other readers interested in this concealed conflict argument:

• Sugden (1993), “Normative judgments and spontaneous order: the contractarian element in Hayek’s thought”, Constitutional Political Economy.
• Keizer (1994, Hayek’s critique of socialism, in Birner and van Zijp (eds), Hayek, Co-ordination and Evolution.
• Boettke and Leeson (2002), “Hayek, Arrow, and the problems of democratic decision-making”, Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice.
• Servant (2017), “Let’s agree not to agree: F. A. Hayek’s calculus of consent”, The Cambridge Journal of Economics. Where I present Hayek’s notion that markets guarantee the lack of compulsion to agree on particular ends – and for these reasons considerably enhance the prospects for mutual agreement.

I, for one, regret that there exists so little literature comparing Rawls and Hayek on this point. The issue is intriguing because Rawls shared with Hayek the concern for the possibility of disagreement between people in pluralistic societies, and yet he developed a kind of theory of distributive justice that Hayek suggested is not possible.

Thank you very much for your post,
Best wishes,
Régis Servant.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad