The Constitution of Liberty

In 1950, when Hayek moved to Chicago, he had been working on The Abuse and Decline of Reason essays for a while; some of the early findings had been published in Individualism and Economic Order (1948), and more would be published in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952). He was interested in the connection between societal transformation and the manner in which scientific knowledge is presented. In comparison to being a member of the economics department, he fared substantially better on the Committee on Social Thought. On March 7, 1954, Hayek requested funding from the Guggenheim Foundation for his travels to Italy and Greece. He did this not only for his study of John Stuart Mill, but also because he believed that visiting these non-industrialized regions would help him better understand how tradition and culture develop in agrarian societies. He was concerned in the development of nonrational, but nonverbally explicit, rules and traditions. He planned to publish two books on the liberal order, The Constitution of Liberty and "The Creative Powers of a Free Civilization" (eventually the title for the second chapter of The Constitution of Liberty). He completed The Constitution of Liberty in May 1959, with publication in February 1960.^[2]

According to Bruce Caldwell, the challenges posed by H. D. Dickinson and John Maynard Keynes to Hayek's ideas on political philosophy and economics, Dickinson asked for a positive program from opponents of collectivism, while Keynes wanted guidance on where to draw the line between good and bad government intervention. Hayek addressed these challenges in this book.^[3]

Liberty as the absence of coercion by others is different with political freedom, inner freedom, and freedom as power or ability. Liberty is a distinct good that allows individuals to pursue their own goals without coercion, according to Hayek. Because liberty makes individuals pursue diverse paths and adapt to changing circumstances, liberty is essential for innovation and progress. But Hayek warns against excessive control and the potential stifling of spontaneous forces essential for societal advancement. In a free society the advancement of the wealthy can benefit the rest, by making new innovations and standards of living.^[4]

Hayek contrasts two appraches on liberty and reason; rationalistic and evolutionary. Rationalistic approaches emphasize deliberate design and control, and evolutionary perspectives stress the importance of tradition, spontaneous order, and the limitations of human reason. Due to the inherent complexity and unpredictability of human civilization, human reason must operate within the framework of societal evolution.^[4]

The decline in esteem for individual responsibility and individual liberty is the result of wrong interpretation of the lessons of science. Responsibility has become a legal concept. But it is no less a moral concept. Attitude toward the working of social order, approval or disapproval of the manner where it determines the relative position of individuals, is closely linked with the views about responsibility. The sense of responsibility has been weakened, by overextending the range of an individual’s responsibilities as by absolving him from the actual consequences of his actions. Effective responsibility must be individual responsibility. ^[4]

Equality of the general rules of law and conduct is conducive to liberty. It is bound to produce inequality in many respects. The transmission of standards and traditions within a family is intricately linked to the ability to pass on material possessions. It is challenging to comprehend how restricting the improvement of material circumstances to just one generation would benefit the genuine welfare of society.

The inheritance of property and the role it plays in transmitting wealth across generations, the evolving perception of equality are discussed. Where Hayek argues value and merit, he writes that rewarding individuals based on perceived merit can undermine freedom and create societal tensions. Hayek challenges conventional ideas about equality, merit, and justice, advocating for a nuanced understanding of these concepts in the context of individual freedom and societal organization.^[4]

Democracy serves as a mechanism for establishing laws, whereas liberalism focuses on the fundamental principles that shape those laws. Hayek stresses the significance of recognizing that democracy alone does not automatically ensure the existence of sound legislation, and highlights the necessity of shared principles to steer decisions made by the majority. Furthermore, he explores the perils associated with unrestrained majority authority, advocating for the safeguarding of individual freedoms within democratic frameworks.^[4]

Liberalism and democracy share a complex relationship, necessitating limitations on government authority to ensure effective governance. Hayek explores the evolving dynamics between independent individuals and the employed majority, particularly within the framework of capitalism and democracy. The significance of maintaining a balance between independence and employment is underscored, underscoring the need for a substantial number of independent individuals to safeguard freedom and diversity in society. Additionally, Hayek delves into the role of affluent individuals in supporting non-materialistic pursuits. Furthermore, he counters the demonization of wealth and success, contending that restricting individual achievements could impede societal progress.^[4]

The importance of protecting individual spheres from interference is discussed. Property rights are essential for preventing coercion. Coercion prevention is a primary function of the state, while moral rules and conventions exert pressure on behavior without constituting severe coercion. These noncoercive rules facilitate social interaction without severely impeding liberty. Hayek discusses the concept of law and its relationship to freedom within society. Law as a set of general, abstract rules that apply equally to everyone, provides a secure and free sphere for individual action.^[4]

The distinction between laws and specific commands is discussed. Laws are characterized by their generality and abstractness, allowing individuals to make their own decisions within the framework provided by the law. Hayek also argued how laws serve to coordinate individual actions, help mutual cooperation, and establish order in society without the need for centralized direction. The rule of law is essential for preserving individual liberty and enabling effective social organization.^[4]

Hayek traces the evolution of individual liberty from 17th-century England. He surveys medieval and classical influences, English struggles for liberty, philosophical justifications by figures like John Locke, and the consolidation of these ideals in the 18th century. There are challenges to traditional liberty concepts, particularly from French revolutionary thought, leading to shifts in political ideologies. The development of constitutionalism in America, contributes to the formation of state constitutions and the drafting of the federal Constitution. The influence of Bills of Rights, the principle of separation of powers, and the role of judicial review in safeguarding individual rights and limiting government powers are discussed. The narrative extends to the challenges faced by the American Constitution, including conflicts between the Executive and the Supreme Court. He emphasizes the importance of the American experiment in constitutionalism, noting its enduring success while acknowledging ongoing challenges and the need for constant vigilance to uphold the rule of law. Hayek discusses the historical development of the concept of the rule of law, focusing on its evolution in Europe, notably in Germany and France. He highlights the tension between the ideal of the rule of law and the realities of administrative power, emphasizing how administrative machinery often expanded at the expense of individual liberties despite efforts to establish constitutional limits. He discussed the establishment of administrative courts in Germany as a means to achieve judicial control over administrative actions, contrasting this with the situation in England. Ultimately, he reflects on the challenges and contradictions in realizing the rule of law amidst the growth of bureaucratic power and the emergence of the welfare state.^[4]

The concept and importance of the rule of law are in ensuring individual liberty within a society governed by democratic principles. The need for clear rules that govern governmental actions, limiting administrative discretion and ensuring that coercive powers are exercised within defined legal boundaries. The judicial review controls administrative decisions and protecting individual rights. Hayek touches on the balance between individual freedoms and necessary government intervention, particularly in times of emergency, stressing the importance of compensation for any infringements on individual rights. He underscores the significance of the rule of law over procedural safeguards alone, warning against a mere adherence to legal formalities without a true commitment to the underlying principles of justice and fairness. The concept of freedom in economic affairs functions within the framework of the rule of law. Figures like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill advocated for economic freedom within legal boundaries, emphasizing the importance of general rules over government intervention. The distinction between legitimate government activities, such as providing services and setting standards, and arbitrary control over prices and quantities is highlighted. Hayek argues against the pursuit of distributive justice, which conflicts with the rule of law and may lead to the abandonment of free market principles in favor of a centrally planned economy. Hayek underscores maintaining the rule of law is important to preserve individual freedom and economic efficiency.^[4]

Hayek outlines a historical narrative focusing on the erosion of the rule of law in various Western countries, particularly in England and the United States, from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century. He highlights the transition towards administrative discretion over fixed legal rules, influenced by socialist ideologies and the perceived need for efficiency in governance. The narrative discusses key figures and movements, such as the Fabian movement in Britain and the public administration movement in the United States, which advocated for greater governmental control at the expense of individual liberties. Hayek also examines intellectual trends that undermined traditional legal principles, including attacks on the certainty of law and the promotion of administrative absolutism. Despite these trends, Hayek identifies signs of a reaction against these developments, particularly in countries that experienced totalitarian regimes, and emphasizes the importance of preserving the rule of law within a democratic framework. He concludes by acknowledging efforts to revive the tradition of the rule of law but notes a lack of clear awareness of its implications in contemporary society.^[4]

"Why I am Not a Conservative" is a critique of conservatism. Conservatism is too focused on preserving the status quo and is resistant to change, therefore, can lead to a lack of progress and innovation, and conservatism is often associated with authoritarianism, and it can be a threat to individual liberty, for Hayek.^[4]

• Introduction

• 1. Liberty and Liberties
• 2. The Creative Powers of a Free Civilization
• 3. The Common Sense of Progress
• 4. Freedom, Reason, and Tradition
• 5. Responsibility and Freedom
• 6. Equality, Value, and Merit
• 7. Majority Rule
• 8. Employment and Independence

• 9. Coercion and the State
• 10. Law, Commands, and Order
• 11. The Origins of the Rule of Law
• 12. The American Contribution: Constitutionalism
• 13. Liberalism and Administration: The Rechtsstaat
• 14. The Safeguards of Individual Liberty
• 15. Economic Policy and the Rule of Law
• 16. The Decline of the Law

• 17. The Decline of Socialism and the Rise of the Welfare State
• 18. Labor Unions and Employment
• 19. Social Security
• 20. Taxation and Redistribution
• 21. The Monetary Framework
• 22. Housing and Town Planning
• 23. Agriculture and Natural Resources
• 24. Education and Research

Postscript: Why I am Not a Conservative

Sidney Hook criticized Hayek's belief in the superiority of tradition over reason and his rejection of intelligent social control. Hook argued that history shows the dangers of relying solely on non-rational processes, and planning can coexist with democracy and freedom. Hook also criticizes Hayek's narrow definition of freedom and his binary thinking. While he acknowledged Hayek's value as a cautionary voice, he ultimately said that Hayek's economic philosophy could lead to disaster.^[5]

Lionel Robbins agreed with Hayek's emphasis on the non-rational element in social habits and institutions, but expressed concern that this emphasis may lead to indiscriminate acceptance and admiration of all institutions and habits, including those that are harmful. Robbins noted a contrast between Hume and Burke, with Hume being more willing to subject institutions to critical scrutiny based on public utility, while Burke's conservatism sometimes becomes indefensible. Robbins also disagreed with Hayek's classification of nineteenth century English Utilitarians as "false" Continental Rationalists, and argued that their thought was squarely within the tradition of English empiricism and not deserving of the label "false" liberalism. Robbins also suggested that Bentham and his followers were not doctrinaire individualists, but rather had nuanced views on economic organization and were not necessarily supportive of collectivization.^[6]

Frank Knight criticized Hayek for its lack of attention to the critical events and principles of the Liberal Revolution that established democratic societies, emphasizing the importance of democracy, political order, and rule of law. Knight criticized Hayek for being scornful towards politically organized freedom. Knight accused Hayek of making anarchist statements that exclude rulers and limit legislation logically, and that Hayek's criticisms of democracy imply that the government should do nothing unless to enforce universally known laws. He also criticized Hayek's treatment of equality, arguing that his extreme absolutism is a mistake. Knight further accused Hayek of reaching a supreme absurdity in his discussion of equality of opportunity, ignoring the role of social structures in shaping opportunities and the consequences of history and social forces on individual achievements.^[7]

Jacob Viner argued that Hayek's conclusions are unconditional because Hayek selected extreme positions to attack and works with a limited set of values. According to Viner, This approach can lead to logical fallacies, such as attacking a straw man or the fallacy of the unexplored remainder. He also questioned Hayek's doctrine appears similar to social Darwinism and historicism.^[8]

Ronald Hamowy criticized Hayek's views on coercion and the difficulty in defining it within his theoretical framework. He criticized Hayek's proposed framework, arguing that it allows for the concentration of power in the hands of the state and can lead to the overthrow of personal liberty. Hamowy concluded that Hayek's position on coercion and freedom must be rejected due to its inconsistencies.^[9] Hayek responded to Hamowy's criticism.^[10]

The Constitution of Liberty was notably held up at a British Conservative Party policy meeting and banged on the table by Margaret Thatcher, who reportedly interrupted a presentation to indicate, in reference to the book, that "This is what we believe".^[11][12][13]

The Constitution of Liberty was placed 9th on the list of the 100 best non-fiction books of the twentieth century compiled by the biweekly conservative magazine National Review.^[14]

• The Road To Serfdom (1944), Hayek's most well-known work.

•   Quotations related to The Constitution of Liberty at Wikiquote