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

REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 75
and attacking the socialistic definitions; chapter 8, on
employment, independence, and the role of the intellectuals;
chapter 16, on the modern decline of the rule of law; chapter
20, which, though advocating fallacious proportional
taxation, is valuable on balance for its fine criticisms of progressive
taxation; and the postscript, which has much keen
critique of “conservatism,” although its positive position is a
weak, ultimately pragmatic “Whiggism”).
It is, in fine, a tragic failure because, setting out in this
big book to establish a groundwork and a system for liberty,
this is precisely what Hayek fails to do and which constitutes
his chief error. He has no principle for liberty. His only principle
is the “rule of law,” and this, weak anyway, is so vitiated
and qualified that, by the end, there is virtually no principle
remaining.
This lack of principle can best be shown by a list I have
compiled from the book, setting forth Hayek’s partisan
biases, biases stemming from his odd concept of the State’s
“noncoercive” activities, and from his defining “coercion”
peculiarly to include “neighborhood effects” on others’ property,
etc. The following is the list of Hayek’s specific partisan
biases in economic applications of his theory.
Hayek favors the following:
requiring “monopolist” not to discriminate in price
among his customers
government sanitation
government roads
compulsory jury service (which he considers
“noncoercive”)
compulsory deputizing of constables (also, as I’ve
said, conscription is “noncoercive”)
government enforcement of religious conformity in
an age when people believe that the collective community
is responsible for everyone’s actions against
God (e.g., if people believe that homosexuals would
bring down the wrath of Sodom and Gomorrah upon
them, homosexuality should be outlawed)
government enforcement of “rules of conduct” in
public places (a vague endorsement)