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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSOPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS<br />
42 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI<br />
conscription in <strong>the</strong> event of foreign aggression, and many<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r typical government activities. Conscription, for example,<br />
is one of those issues about which libertarians are totally<br />
intransigent, considering it a form of downright slavery.<br />
Hayek, instead, thinks it is certainly a very severe form<br />
of coercion but one that could be justified “to ward off <strong>the</strong><br />
danger of worse coercion by an external enemy.” 79 The question<br />
of public health and of various kinds of welfare for <strong>the</strong><br />
poor is part of <strong>the</strong> particular Hayekian concept of solidarity.<br />
Hayek feels that it goes without saying that <strong>the</strong> state should<br />
take care of those unable to provide for <strong>the</strong>mselves and that<br />
a minimum level of subsistence should be guaranteed for all<br />
so that no member of society would lack for food, shelter,<br />
and medical treatment. Apart from proven cases of need<br />
that should rightly be borne by society as a whole, in reality<br />
Hayek proposes solutions to social-security problems that<br />
are not based on a state monopoly for certain activities. He<br />
only opts for obligatory insurance in fields such as old-age<br />
pensions and health care, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> observation<br />
that if certain state activities enjoy a monopoly, “<strong>the</strong> result<br />
is usually not only that those advantages soon prove illusory<br />
but that <strong>the</strong> character of <strong>the</strong> services becomes entirely different<br />
from that which <strong>the</strong>y would have had if provided by<br />
competing agencies.” 80 In this way, <strong>the</strong> benefits of competition<br />
are lost and certain services become <strong>the</strong> dominion of<br />
bureaucratic hierarchies. For Hayek, it is precisely in order<br />
to safeguard some individuals from suffering coercion that<br />
state activities cannot be limited to maintaining law and<br />
order. Obligatory insurance, which <strong>Rothbard</strong> sees as invading<br />
<strong>the</strong> sphere of an individual’s liberty, means that <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r members of society are not obliged to provide for<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r members in need.<br />
The Hayekian argument concerning solidarity is linked to<br />
a particular conception. In a society in which <strong>the</strong> protective<br />
79 Hayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, p. 349.<br />
80 Hayek, Constitution of Liberty, p. 261.