Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSOPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS
26 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI
These are the theoretical premises that led Hayek to
question some entrenched views in the history of political
institutions. First and foremost is the idea that a normative
system has been intentionally created by someone or is the
result of an explicit agreement. For Hayek, both the
assumption that a right is the fruit of the famous Bodinian
sovereignty—the power to make and break laws—and the
contractualist assumption are only the result of a constructivist
rationalism that stands in the way of a correct understanding
of the evolution of political and social institutions.
It is a short step to the criticism of legal positivism, which,
in fact,
proves on examination to be entirely based on
what we have called the constructivist fallacy. It is
explains, “A designer or an engineer needs all the data and full power
to control or manipulate them if he is to organize the material
objects to produce the intended result. But the success of action in
society depends on more particular facts than anyone can possibly
know.” It is important to remember “the necessary and irremediable
ignorance on everyone’s part of the particular facts which determine
the actions of all the several members of human society” (F.A. Hayek,
Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 1, Rules and Order [London:
Routledge, 1973], p. 29). Scattered and fallible knowledge encourages
holding both the gradualism and the experience of the past in
high esteem. Awareness of the existence of the inevitable, unintentional
consequences of intentional human actions leads to severe criticism
of rationalism or constructivism. Criticism of the constructivist
presumption is further extended by Karl R. Popper. Popperian epistemology—claiming
that the study of society necessarily depends on
one’s perspective, as is the case when studying any subject—explains
that infallible social engineering is impossible. Popper makes a distinction
between utopian social engineering and step-by-step
mechanics: “The piecemeal engineer knows, like Socrates, how little
he knows. He knows that we can learn only from our mistakes.
Accordingly, he will make his way, step by step, carefully comparing
the results expected with the results achieved, and always on the
look-out for the unavoidable unwanted consequences of any reform.”
See Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (Boston: Beacon Press,
1957), p. 67. On this subject, see also Dario Antiseri, Liberi perché
fallibili (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 1995) and Trattato di
metodologia delle scienze sociali (Turin: UTET, 2000).