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.