04.06.2013 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 THE PHILOSPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS<br />

72 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI<br />

for a rationalist groundwork for liberty. While Hayek has<br />

improved on his previous draft slightly, in richness of material<br />

and in qualifying particularly poor passages, <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />

substantive change in his position. As before, Hayek begins<br />

very well in <strong>the</strong> first chapter by defining freedom as meaning<br />

“absence of coercion,” but fails badly in defining “coercion.”<br />

For Hayek, “coercion” is defined as arbitrary, specifically<br />

harmful acts; <strong>the</strong> term is thus used much more broadly<br />

and yet more narrowly than its proper definition: “<strong>the</strong> use of<br />

violence.” Hence, Hayek can say that for a factory to fire a<br />

worker in a place where unemployment is heavy—or to<br />

threaten to fire him—is an act of “coercion,” on <strong>the</strong> same<br />

level as actual acts of violence.<br />

Hayek’s only principle of noncoercion for government is<br />

<strong>the</strong> “rule of law,” on which he places exclusive reliance. In<br />

such a chapter as chapter 16, “The Decline of <strong>the</strong> Law,”<br />

Hayek is excellent in attacking modern legal philosophers<br />

who push <strong>the</strong> state in a socialistic direction beyond <strong>the</strong> rule:<br />

such as Kelsen and <strong>the</strong> legal positivists, and Harold Laski. 21<br />

However, Hayek spends virtually equal emphasis on attacking<br />

those who would narrow <strong>the</strong> rule to limit government<br />

activity to defense of life, liberty, and property. Hayek<br />

attacks this as an “extreme,” unduly narrow, etc., view of<br />

<strong>the</strong> role of government. To Hayek, laissez-faire is almost as<br />

bad an outgrowth of “rationalism” as is socialism.<br />

This book makes clear to me, as <strong>the</strong> first fourteen chapters<br />

of <strong>the</strong> draft did not, that Hayek’s rule of law limits are<br />

21 Harold Laski (1893–1950) was an English political <strong>the</strong>orist<br />

and professor of political science at <strong>the</strong> London School of Economics<br />

from 1926 to 1950. He was convinced that socialism in England<br />

had been more greatly influenced by John Stuart Mill than by Karl<br />

Marx, and he taught a kind of modified Marxism. He was a member<br />

of <strong>the</strong> Labour Party’s National Executive Committee between 1937<br />

and 1949 and significantly influenced its policy. He was chairman of<br />

<strong>the</strong> Labour Party from 1945 to 1946. He wrote A Grammar of Politics<br />

(1925); Liberty in <strong>the</strong> Modern State (1930); Reflections on <strong>the</strong><br />

Revolution of Our Time (1943); and The American Democracy<br />

(1948).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!