Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSOPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS<br />
30 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI<br />
this sense, for Hayek, “law and legal institutions should be<br />
examined in <strong>the</strong>ir relation to <strong>the</strong> processes which governed<br />
<strong>the</strong> evolution of <strong>the</strong> customary and tradition-based practices<br />
embedded in actual historical communities.” 50 Having said<br />
this, it should never<strong>the</strong>less be emphasized that Hayek is<br />
above all a great defender of <strong>the</strong> rule of law and that he<br />
prefers <strong>the</strong> concept of cultural evolution to that of human<br />
nature.<br />
The truly irreconcilable points between <strong>the</strong> evolutionist<br />
<strong>the</strong>ory of law and <strong>Rothbard</strong>’s adherence to <strong>the</strong> concept of<br />
natural law are rationalism and fallibilism. One of <strong>Rothbard</strong>’s<br />
severest reprimands is, in fact, “Hayek’s continuous<br />
and all-pervasive attack on reason.” 51 In reality, Hayek’s<br />
attack is against <strong>the</strong> abuse of reason, against that constructive<br />
rationalism that leads to an infinite faith in <strong>the</strong> capacity<br />
of human reason to shape social and political institutions<br />
as it pleases. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, it<br />
should be noted that Hayek is not an anti-rationalist, saying,<br />
“it is <strong>the</strong>refore better in this connection not to distinguish<br />
between ‘rationalism’ and ‘anti-rationalism’ but to distinguish<br />
between a constructivist and an evolutionary, or, in<br />
Karl Popper’s terms, a naïve and a critical rationalism.” 52<br />
Given <strong>the</strong>se premises, <strong>Rothbard</strong> is unable to share <strong>the</strong><br />
Hayekian idea of true and false individualism, which contrasts<br />
a rationalist tradition that is mainly French (in <strong>the</strong><br />
Cartesian mold and moving toward a constructivist presumption)<br />
with a British, evolutionist, empirical and truly<br />
liberal tradition connected by Hayek to <strong>the</strong> Whig tradition.<br />
<strong>Rothbard</strong> criticizes <strong>the</strong> fact that thinkers of <strong>the</strong> caliber of<br />
Thomas Jefferson, Richard Price, Joseph Priestley, and<br />
Thomas Paine were undervalued and seen as “terrible rationalists.”<br />
<strong>Rothbard</strong> makes a fur<strong>the</strong>r comment, and one that<br />
50Ibid., p. 128.<br />
51<strong>Rothbard</strong>, “Memo to <strong>the</strong> Volker Fund on F.A. Hayek’s Constitution<br />
of Liberty”; see p. 61 in this volume.<br />
52Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, vol. 1, p. 29.