The curious thing is that this appeal to the “social” really involves a demand that individual intelligence, rather than rules evolved by society, should guide individual action – that men should dispense with the use of what could truly be called “social” (in the sense of being a product of the impersonal process of society) and should rely on their individual judgment of the particular case. The preference for “social considerations” over the adherence to moral rules is, therefore, ultimately the result of a contempt for what really is a social phenomenon and of a belief in the superior powers of individual human reason.Replace "social" with "libertarian" where I've underlined the words and you have precisely my problem with the whole movement and the radical changes that it entails.
I wouldn't put it as harshly as Hayek does, though. I'm not sure it comes from a contempt for what really is a social phenomenon. I think it comes from a lack of critical insight into a system that they really want to make work.
Posts
Then you probably have a problem with David Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment generally as well.
ReplyDeleteHuh?
DeleteMy whole point here is that I don't like libertarianism because I like things like Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment.
Libertarians propose precisely the sort of radical change that Hayek here, and Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment warn us against.
You are not understanding the argument at all if you conclude that I have a problem with Hume and the Scottish Enlightenment.
DeleteHayek isn't proposing a radical change, that's the point.
ReplyDeleteHayek is better on this sort of thing that most libertarians. I don't know enough of his thinking to completely agree with you or not.
DeleteLibertarians generally fail abysmally at the spontaneous order vs. planning question. They'll offer you their detailed social planning blueprint that diverges considerably from the evolved social order pretty much every time, and then they'll quote good stuff like this from Hayek with a straight face.
Sounds like you've got a real dislike for libertarians. That doesn't really bode well for a conversation.
DeleteDislike? Why do you say that? I'm quite fond of lots of libertarians. What I think of a person has a lot more to do with that person's behavior than their ideas.
DeleteWhat I have is a skepticism for libertarian ideas. If you can't handle that, that doesn't really bode well for a conversation.
Then again, you've probably never read any of Hume's political writings because you never, ever write anything remotely familiar to what he wrote - what one writes reflects what one reads after all.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... the most recent time I can think of something that I wrote extensively about here that bore quite a resemblance to Hume's views was what I wrote about James Buchanan and my thoughts on constitutions.
DeleteYou don't think that was pretty damn similar to Hume's position in "That Politics Might be Reduced to a Science"?
And in this very post I'm endorsing Hayek's point. Surely you think this quote from Hayek resembles Hume's writings!
I'm no philosopher, and I won't claim to have read Hume in any exceptional depth. But if you think I've never "written anything remotely familiar to what he wrote", then I have to wonder how well you know Hume.
Since the Buchanan posting there's been a lot of stuff about immigration and the minimum wage... Humean political philosophy doesn't really speak to what we've been noodling over on that question.
DeleteAlthough he probably would appreciate my empirical orientation in the minimum wage discussions!
I haven't written as much about it recently, but certainly share his anti-rationalism streak too. A lot of that posting may have been before your time in the comment section, though (which means you probably shouldn't be pronouncing on my record so haughtily).