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

LAW AND NATURE IN THE WORK OF MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 35
Rothbard rightly points out that not all that has evolved
spontaneously is consistent with a system of liberty and an
open society. It would therefore be a mistake to accept passively
all conventions and customs for the simple reason that
they have already been established. According to the idea of
cultural evolution, over the passage of time, the customs and
institutions that take root are those best suited to the survival
and development of a social group. Thus, if the Rothbardian
criticism of Hayek as a historian of political thought
does not seem to grasp the essence of his reflections, Rothbard
does, however, highlight one of the more problematic
areas of Hayek’s work. It is not only questionable whether
the best institutions are always the ones to succeed, but
there is also the problem of the long period of time required
for the necessary changes to take place in any unfair institutions
or customs. As a matter of fact, Hayek does not rule
out the possibility of deliberate legislative corrections:
Austrian Scholar’s Conference. In it, Rothbard highlights the differences
within the Austrian School of economics regarding the
dichotomy between the Hayekian paradigm and that of Mises on the
subject of unintended consequences which would, in effect, undermine
the importance of the intended consequences of an individual’s
rational plans. If, as Mises maintains, all human actions have a purpose,
in Rothbard’s opinion it would be much better to make intentional
and known all that which is at the unintentional level. Rothbard
criticizes the Hayekian theory of spontaneous order since,
from his point of view, it implies a lack of awareness on the part of
human beings. Besides, accepting such a theory would mean holding
a conservative and uncritical attitude towards those institutions
that had simply developed spontaneously, the state included. It is
necessary, however, to emphasize that in this paper Rothbard does
not address the subject of the criticism of the value-free defense of
the market sustained by Mises. In order to understand the divisions
between the Austrians, it is instructive to read the article by Joseph
T. Salerno, “Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist,” Review of Austrian
Economics 4, no. 1 (1990): 26–54. Salerno contrasts Mises’s
“rationalism” with Hayek’s “irrational” emphasis on spontaneous
order. Salerno’s idea is that to achieve social change, we cannot rely
on spontaneous and unintended consequences (pp. 50–51).